A judge in a Delaware courtroom dismissing a voting rights challenge involving corporate voters in Fenwick Island.
A judge in a Delaware courtroom dismissing a voting rights challenge involving corporate voters in Fenwick Island.
Picha iliyoundwa na AI

Delaware judge dismisses ACLU challenge to Fenwick Island rule allowing some corporations and other entities to vote in town elections

Picha iliyoundwa na AI
Imethibitishwa ukweli

A Delaware Superior Court judge has rejected a constitutional challenge to Fenwick Island’s charter provisions that let certain nonresident property owners—including corporations, trusts and LLCs—cast ballots in municipal elections, ruling that the town’s system does not violate Delaware’s requirement that elections be “free and equal.”

A Delaware Superior Court judge has upheld Fenwick Island’s long-running practice of allowing some nonresident property owners—including certain “artificial entities” such as corporations, partnerships, trusts and limited liability companies—to participate in the beach town’s municipal elections.

In a 19-page memorandum opinion and order dated May 26, 2026, Judge Craig A. Karsnitz granted the town’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware, which argued that allowing votes to be cast on behalf of legal entities unlawfully dilutes the voting power of natural persons under the Delaware Constitution’s Elections Clause, which states that “[a]ll elections shall be free and equal.”

Karsnitz concluded that, under Delaware’s municipal “home rule” framework, voter eligibility for most towns is defined by the town charter, and Fenwick Island’s charter expressly extends voting rights to property owners that include both natural persons and certain Delaware domestic entities—provided the voter is properly registered and meets the charter’s requirements.

The judge also pointed to the charter’s built-in limitation that the provisions “shall be construed in accordance with the principle of ‘one person/entity, one vote,’” including rules intended to prevent multiple votes by the same voter based on multiple properties or dual eligibility as both a resident and a property owner.

In the opinion, Karsnitz wrote that while fears about “faceless large corporations” controlling local government may be alarming, Delaware law recognizes corporations and other legal entities as “persons” for legal purposes, and the ACLU’s complaint did not, in his view, establish a violation of the state constitutional standard for “free and equal” elections.

The case is American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware v. Town of Fenwick Island, Delaware Superior Court, C.A. No. S25C-12-003 CAK.

Watu wanasema nini

X discussions focused on the Delaware judge's ruling upholding corporate voting in Fenwick Island. Journalists shared factual updates on the 12% entity voter share. Activists and users criticized the decision as expanding corporate power, with some expressing outrage over non-human entities voting. Posts highlighted the ACLU loss and narrow local context without broader state impact.

Makala yanayohusiana

A federal judge in Boston blocking parts of Trump's election executive order in a courtroom setting.
Picha iliyoundwa na AI

Federal judge in Boston permanently blocks parts of Trump election executive order

Imeripotiwa na AI Picha iliyoundwa na AI Imethibitishwa ukweli

A federal judge in Boston on Wednesday issued a permanent injunction blocking key parts of President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought, among other changes, to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration using the federal form. The Justice Department is expected to appeal.

Hong Kong’s top court has been asked to abolish a law that bans calls to boycott the city’s patriots-only elections. The appellant argues the measure violates rights to express political disapproval and make informed voting decisions. The government maintains the issue lies outside constitutional review.

Imeripotiwa na AI

The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled Friday that a voter-approved redistricting plan violated state constitutional procedures. The 4-3 decision nullifies the April referendum and keeps the state's existing congressional maps in place. Democrats had sought the change to gain a stronger edge ahead of the 2026 midterms.

In a follow-up to its April 29 ruling in Callais v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on May 5 allowing the decision—striking down the state's congressional map as a racial gerrymander—to take effect immediately. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurrence, sharply criticized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's lone dissent as 'baseless' and 'insulting,' highlighting tensions amid 2026 election battles.

Imeripotiwa na AI

The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that a newly drawn congressional map favored by Democrats is unconstitutional, overturning the results of a special election and leaving the state with its previous boundaries.

A three-judge federal panel on Tuesday barred Alabama from using a Republican-backed congressional map for the 2026 elections, finding the plan was tainted by intentional race-based discrimination against Black voters. The panel included two judges appointed by President Donald Trump.

Imeripotiwa na AI

The Supreme Court on Monday issued two unexplained orders returning voting rights cases from Mississippi and North Dakota to lower courts for reconsideration. The moves follow the court's recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that reshaped Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from both orders.

 

 

 

Tovuti hii inatumia vidakuzi

Tunatumia vidakuzi kwa uchambuzi ili kuboresha tovuti yetu. Soma sera ya faragha yetu kwa maelezo zaidi.
Kataa