Delaware judge blocks challenge to corporate voting

Delaware judge – A Delaware Superior Court judge dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit contesting a coastal town’s law that lets corporation representatives vote in local elections. The judge did not rule on whether corporations are eligible voters, saying the ci

On a small stretch of Delaware’s coast, an election system built around property ownership has drawn a fight that reached state court—and then hit a wall.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz declined to strike a Fenwick Island provision that allows a representative of a local corporation to vote on the corporation’s behalf in the town’s elections. The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware had sued. arguing the policy violates the “one person. one vote” principle and raising concerns about presumed out-of-state owners voting through a power-of-attorney process.

The case mattered beyond Fenwick Island. Delaware is home to 2.1 million businesses, while the state hit the 1-million-resident mark in 2025. The ACLU said the ability for corporate representatives to vote could tilt outcomes in local contests—bond referendums. town council elections. and other municipal votes—especially if the number of corporate votes swells beyond the resident electorate.

Karsnitz’s order did not declare that corporations can vote in Delaware. Instead. he dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit on threshold issues. writing that the civil rights group lacked legal standing for its complaint. he lacked jurisdiction on the ACLU’s request. the organization failed to add other municipalities to the litigation. and the complaint did not state a claim for the relief it sought.

In the same order. Karsnitz acknowledged the emotional force of the argument—even quoting a pop-culture image to make the point vivid. “Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL [Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer from Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’]. controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction. ” he wrote. “However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote.”.

Delaware Secretary of State Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The ACLU of Delaware said it is reviewing the court’s decision for next steps. The dismissal leaves in place the Fenwick Island law that the lawsuit challenged and spotlights a deeper question that’s hard to settle in court: whether the dispute is procedural, constitutional, or both.

The court pointed to how Fenwick Island’s rules work. It said the state amended Fenwick Island’s laws to allow the town to expand voter registrations and allow people to vote on behalf of trusts. limited liability companies. partnerships. and corporations that own property in the town. The ACLU argued the provision dilutes votes in a way that violates the state constitution.

The ACLU’s concern was not hypothetical. In its release announcing the Fenwick Island challenge. the group said five towns allow “artificial entities” to vote. and that the Fenwick Island lawsuit is the first known legal challenge to the statute. It argued that Fenwick Island has at-large elections and that. in 2024. the number of votes cast by artificial entities was greater than the margin between a winning candidate and the top-vote-getting losing candidate.

The organization also said that as of October 2025. over 200 artificial entities were registered to vote in Fenwick Island. making up approximately 12% of the town’s electorate. University of Delaware assistant professor Dael Norwood told the court in 2024 that the estimate is much higher. saying nearly 70% of all Delaware municipalities allow corporations to vote. The ACLU said votes are typically for referendums, while Fenwick Island, Dagsboro, and Henlopen Acres allow voting in all circumstances.

Karsnitz’s reasoning leaned heavily on Delaware law’s definitions. He wrote that trusts. partnerships. limited liability companies. and corporations are expressly recognized as “persons” in the Delaware Code. including Delaware’s Revised Uniform Partnership Act. Limited Partnership Act. and Limited Liability Act. He added that while other places in Delaware have similar laws allowing property owners to cast one vote in local elections. the ACLU failed to show how Fenwick Island violated the Elections Clause of Delaware’s constitution.

That points to the hard stop the judge delivered: the case did not clear the legal bar the ACLU sought to clear.

The dismissal also came as other states move to curtail corporate influence in elections. The Hawaii law signed by Gov. Josh Green. a Democrat. aimed to reduce the influence corporations and “dark money” groups have in elections. and it hinged on the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United. a conservative group that wanted to run television ads for its anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the secretary of state’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Back in Delaware, the practical impact remains immediate. If owners of the state’s 2.1 million incorporated companies were recognized as registered voters in Delaware, the count would nearly quadruple the number of registered voters reported for the 2024 presidential election, which was 788,441.

Karsnitz’s order keeps Fenwick Island’s corporate voting provision intact for now. It also shifts the fight toward the next step the ACLU said it is considering—one that will have to answer not just what Delaware allows. but whether the ACLU can bring the challenge in a form that a court will decide on the merits.

Delaware Fenwick Island corporate voting ACLU of Delaware Craig Karsnitz one person one vote Elections Clause power of attorney Secretary of State Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez