A Delaware judge's ruling that corporations and other business entities can vote in some local elections is stirring debate over whom democracy is meant to serve.

The flashpoint is Fenwick Island, a small coastal town where property-owning entities are granted voting rights under the town charter — an arrangement critics say could sideline the voices of residents.

What's happening?

According to Bloomberg Law, Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig A. Karsnitz dismissed an ACLU challenge to Fenwick Island's election rules, which allow corporations, trusts, partnerships, and limited liability companies to vote in municipal elections under certain circumstances.

In his opinion, Karsnitz relied on what he described as "the principle of one person/entity/one vote."

The ruling includes a line from the opinion stating that "trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations are expressly recognized as 'persons' in the Delaware Code."

Karsnitz also wrote that fears of "faceless large corporations or even [the Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer] controlling a small town" may sound alarming but belong to "science fiction."

While the case centers on Fenwick Island, its implications could stretch beyond the single beach town. Delaware is home to over 2 million business entities and has long been known for embracing broad corporate rights.

Why does it matter?

Votes decide who holds power over development, public services, water quality, storm preparedness, and the future of communities.

If "artificial entities," as the American Civil Liberties Union put it, are allowed to cast ballots alongside residents, local governance could drift from citizens.

In a coastal community, planning decisions can shape housing costs, climate resilience, and environmental protections. Critics argue that votes cast by property-owning entities can dilute residents' influence over those choices.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to expand corporate political spending rights, per Bloomberg Law. For many observers, this case raises the prospect that corporations will not just influence elections with money but directly participate in them.

What are people saying?

The ACLU argued that entity voting "dilutes the political power of living people," but Karsnitz rejected that claim, writing that the lawsuit did not show discrimination or prove that entity property owners vote as a unified bloc capable of overpowering natural persons.

In a post about the news on X, commenters were furious.

"If corporations are allowed a vote, then unions, small businesses, and community organizations should all get an additional vote too! What makes corporations so special?" one user questioned.

Another wrote: "Corporations cannot vote. A human has to place that vote on behalf of said corporations, essentially giving a Delaware voter more than [one] vote or giving an out of state owner of a corporation an illegal vote or giving a foreign owner of a corporation a vote which he or she is not entitled to."

Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.