A judge in the state of Delaware, which has a notable distinction of having more registered business entities than people, has made a significant ruling in favor of a small town that permits corporations to participate in local elections by casting votes. On Monday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz issued a ruling that the town of Fenwick Island, with a population of approximately 400 residents, did not violate the state Constitution by allowing business entities, which comprise 12% of the town's "population," to exercise their right to vote in municipal elections, as claimed by the case plaintiff, the ACLU of Delaware.
At the core of this case is a fundamental question, as Judge Karsnitz noted in his 20-page ruling, "What is a 'person?'" He explained that, according to the law, a person is defined as anyone or anything that can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings, which means that any adult, corporation, or institution is considered a person, whereas a minor, a fetus, or a humanoid robot is not. This definition highlights that legal personhood is dependent solely on legal recognition, which is a crucial aspect of this case.
In 2008, the Delaware General Assembly amended Fenwick Island's charter to expand its voter registration rolls, allowing individuals to cast votes on behalf of trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships, and corporations that own property in Fenwick. As a result, the overwhelming majority of legal entity property owners in Fenwick who are registered to vote, and on whose behalf votes are cast, are trusts. Judge Karsnitz acknowledged that the plaintiff may disagree with Delaware's policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity property owners.
The judge noted that visions of faceless large corporations, or even a malevolent artificial intelligence-powered computer like HAL from Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film version of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction. However, he emphasized that the plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote. The plaintiff has not provided any persuasive independent authority other than the Elections Clause of the Delaware Constitution itself, and matters of policy are appropriately left to legislative bodies, not the courts.
Fenwick Island Mayor Natalie Magdeburger had previously stated that a property owner who pays taxes and is subject to the town's ordinances should have a say in who represents them on the Town Council. On the other hand, the ACLU of Delaware contends that with over 2 million business entities incorporated in Delaware, roughly double the number of actual people living in the state, the people of Delaware risk having their voices drowned out when towns like Fenwick Island allow corporate voting.
It is worth noting that Judge Karsnitz's ruling does not mention the 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which affirmed that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. This decision led to the emergence of super PACs, which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns, and secret spending on elections with so-called "dark money." Although Delaware's corporate personhood laws predate Citizens United, numerous critics of Monday's ruling, including the progressive legal advocacy group Demand Justice, referred to the case.
Demand Justice asserted that corporations are not people, as they do not have children in local schools, they do not drink the water, they cannot be jailed for crimes, and therefore, they should not have the right to vote. Some people compared Hawaii, where Democratic Gov. Josh Green recently signed legislation clarifying that corporations are not people, with Delaware. Writer Van Dennis posted on X that Hawaii made a move to rein in Citizens United, and Delaware responded, implying a dismissive attitude towards the idea of limiting corporate influence.
The ruling has sparked a debate about the role of corporations in local elections and the potential impact on the democratic process. As the discussion continues, it is essential to consider the implications of allowing business entities to participate in local elections and the potential consequences for the people of Delaware.