By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a novel ruling, a Delaware judge determined that certain artificial entities, including corporations and trusts, can possess voting rights in local elections under specific circumstances. This decision dismissed an ACLU challenge against Fenwick Island’s charter, which allows property-owning entities to vote, citing the principle of “one person/entity/one vote.” The judge acknowledged concerns about corporate influence but emphasized that Delaware law expressly recognizes these entities as “persons.” This case highlights ongoing debates surrounding corporate speech rights and electoral influence, particularly in a state heavily reliant on its corporate charters for revenue.
Read the original article here
It appears that a Delaware judge has made a rather striking decision: corporations, and other artificial entities, can, under certain circumstances, cast votes in local elections within the state. This ruling, from Judge Craig A. Karsnitz, came about when he dismissed a challenge brought by the ACLU against a charter that allows property-owning entities in Fenwick Island to vote. The judge’s reasoning hinges on what he termed the “principle of one person/entity/one vote,” and he pointed out that Delaware law expressly recognizes these artificial entities as “persons.” While acknowledging the “frightening” visions this might conjure of large corporations or even sentient AI controlling small towns, he ultimately upheld the charter.
This development has certainly stirred up a significant amount of commentary, and it’s not hard to see why. The immediate reaction for many is a sense of disbelief and concern about how this could fundamentally alter the democratic process. The idea that money could translate directly into votes, by simply creating a multitude of businesses, seems to strike many as a clear path to the erosion of individual voting power and the potential for an oligarchy disguised as democracy. The notion of “artificial entities” having voting rights, especially when contrasted with the responsibilities that human citizens bear, like jail time and taxes, strikes many as fundamentally unfair.
There’s a strong sentiment that this ruling is a logical, albeit unwelcome, extension of earlier legal decisions, most notably *Citizens United*. The argument is that once corporations were granted personhood in a legal sense, it was perhaps inevitable that further rights, including the right to vote, would be debated and potentially granted. This leads to a cascading concern: if corporations can vote, what’s next? Will they be recognized as protected minority groups, or even be eligible to run for public office? The idea that the lines between corporate power and political power are blurring to this extent is a major point of contention.
The practical implications are also a significant worry. The fear is that wealthy individuals or groups could establish a vast number of LLCs or other entities, each with a vote, thereby diluting the power of individual voters. This is especially concerning in a state like Delaware, which is already known for its advantageous laws for incorporating businesses. Some commenters are questioning the motivations behind such a ruling, suggesting that potential economic pressures on the state might be influencing its legislative and judicial decisions. The revenue Delaware generates from corporate registrations is a well-known factor, and it’s speculated that this might be a driving force behind decisions that are overly accommodating to corporate interests.
Furthermore, the concept of accountability is raised repeatedly. If corporations are to be granted rights akin to individuals, then it logically follows, for many, that they should also bear the corresponding liabilities. The question is posed: if a corporation breaks the law, should its board of directors be incarcerated or executed, or should the corporation itself face jail time? The current situation, where corporations seem to enjoy privileges without a full spectrum of responsibilities, is seen as a systemically unjust arrangement. It’s this imbalance – receiving rights without commensurate detriments – that fuels much of the outrage.
The ruling also touches upon the complex and often contentious issue of corporate doctrine versus human rights. Many believe that corporations are inherently different from individuals and should not be conflated with them, especially when it comes to fundamental democratic processes. The fact that the individuals within a corporation already have their own votes, and this ruling potentially allows for them to have their votes multiplied through their corporate holdings, strikes many as an absurd and unjust outcome. The sentiment is that this isn’t simply a free speech issue, but a fundamental question of corporate legal status and its implications for governance.
Ultimately, the decision by the Delaware judge has ignited a debate that goes to the heart of what it means to be a democracy in an era of vast corporate power. The concerns are profound, ranging from the potential for legalized vote manipulation to the philosophical question of whether artificial entities should ever have a say in the governance of human societies. It seems clear that this ruling is not just a local curiosity but a flashpoint in a larger national conversation about the role and rights of corporations in the United States.