Delaware Judge Upholds Corporate Voting Rights in Fenwick Island

On May 26, 2026, Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig A. Karsnitz ruled that the town of Fenwick Island’s charter—amended in 2008 to let corporations, partnerships, trusts and limited-liability companies that own property cast ballots in municipal elections—does not violate the state constitution. The decision dismissed the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware’s lawsuit seeking an injunction against counting votes from “non-human artificial entities.” The judge found no evidence that the policy breaches the elections clause’s requirement that elections be “free and equal,” nor that it dilutes natural-person voting power.

ReutersCorporations Can Vote in Some Delaware Elections, Judge Says (1)Delaware Judge Rules 2 Million Non-Human Corporate Identities Can Vote in a State of 1 Million People

Fenwick Island incorporated in 1953. The Delaware General Assembly amended its charter in 2008 to permit non-resident voting by any Delaware-chartered artificial entity that owns property. Similar provisions exist in several other Delaware municipalities, reflecting the state’s longstanding recognition of corporate personhood and its reliance on fees from more than two million business entities.

Reuters

Artificial entities comprise roughly 12 % of Fenwick Island’s registered voters. Delaware hosts over 2 million corporate entities, outnumbering its roughly 1 million residents. A 2024 local report claimed that entity votes exceeded the margin between the winning and runner-up candidates, though the claim lacks official verification.

Delaware Judge Rules 2 Million Non-Human Corporate Identities Can Vote in a State of 1 Million People

Judge Karsnitz wrote that the elections clause prevents fraud, not entity voting, and that the plaintiff failed to show a violation of the “one person/entity/one vote” principle. Fenwick Island, represented by Brockstedt Mandalas Federico LLC, defended the charter. Mayor Natalie Magdeburger said property owners who pay taxes and are subject to town ordinances should have representation on the council. The ACLU argued that counting votes from non-human entities contravenes the state constitution’s elections clause and sought an injunction.

Reuters

The ACLU contends that corporate voting could dilute natural-person political power and enable “dark money” influence. Critics warn that without a cap on the number of entities a single owner can control, “swarm” voting—where many LLCs each cast a ballot—could reshape election outcomes.

Delaware Judge Rules 2 Million Non-Human Corporate Identities Can Vote in a State of 1 Million People

The assertion that entity votes in 2024 exceeded the winning margin originates from a commentary piece and has not been corroborated by official election data.

Delaware Judge Rules 2 Million Non-Human Corporate Identities Can Vote in a State of 1 Million People

• “Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction,” — Judge Craig A. Karsnitz

Corporations Can Vote in Some Delaware Elections, Judge Says (1)

• “However, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote.” — Judge Craig A. Karsnitz

Delaware Judge Rules 2 Million Non-Human Corporate Identities Can Vote in a State of 1 Million People

• “All elections shall be free and equal.” — Delaware Constitution, elections clause

Reuters

• “a property owner who pays taxes and is subject to our ordinances should have a say in who represents them on our Town Council.” — Mayor Natalie Magdeburger

Reuters

The decision may spur additional lawsuits in other Delaware towns with similar charters and could prompt legislative review of entity-voting provisions. Observers will watch how the ruling shapes municipal election practices statewide.

Reuters