Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 269 posts

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#81

Post by joshkel »

forgetfulness wrote: post #54
ceejayoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wasn't, really. > Where a voter is entitled to vote by virtue of being both a resident and as an owner of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote; where a voter is entitled to vote by ownership of two or more parcels of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote. > Any legal entity other than a natural person entitled to vote, must cast its vote by a duly executed and not…

Also what constitutes ownership here? Couldn't some Enterprising Individuals open 100 shell companies, pool together resources and form the Legalize Asbestos Consortium, the Consortium buys a plot of land and then each stakeholder of the Consortium counts as an owner of the plot of land?

FWIW, it sounds like the judge may be open to ruling against such an action. From his decision at https://aboutblaw.com/blQg:

> Even if Plaintiff had made a “vote dilution” or “one person/one vote” claim under the Equal Protection Clause, it fails. Plaintiff does not assert facts that would adequately support such a claim. Plaintiff does not allege... that natural person voters are a minority or are politically cohesive [or] that entity property owners vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the preferred candidates of natural persons.

Although he also notes that the recent Callais case, severely weakening section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, may change this - and, of course, waiting until the Legalize Asbestos Consortium is doing its thing and trying to file a lawsuit is much more complex than preemptively saying "only natural persons can vote."

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#82

Post by mindslight »

rayiner wrote: post #66
mindslight wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a low effort partisan comment, but "Republicans" generally represent the naked corporate agenda (bad cop) while the "Democrats" at least try to hide it and throw the People some concessions (good cop).

Except we’re talking about Delaware, which is totally controlled by Democrats who also cater to corporations.

Don't play coy. We are obviously talking about the overall national political landscape, extrapolating from this one development to its part in a larger trend. The specific politics of Delaware (which team is the incumbent and how the state is openly corporate friendly) don't change that.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#83

Post by MattCruikshank »

I was daydreaming about, picture if a corporation buys an entire state.

Say, Wyoming or West Virginia. Gemini guesses $180 billion to $250 billion.

With that investment, they'd get to control who lives in the state.

So, then the corporation gets to control who the Governor is. And the two Senators, and the seat in the Congress.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a single Senator have just a tremendous amount of power to block basically any legislation? With pocket vetoes, or silent filibusters?

Granted, actually buying a Senator is probably cheaper by a few orders of magnitude.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#84

Post by Hizonner »

rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

... and if they own 50 houses, each through a separate LLC, they can vote 50 times, even if they do not in fact even live in the area.

... and you can probably come up with a legal way to permanently bind a corporation to vote according to specific rules.

... and larger corporations have totally inhuman internal decision making processes that frequently arrive at conclusions no human would reach.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#85

Post by SoftTalker »

davidw wrote: post #43

Having corporations be distinct entities whose investors have limited liability is a pretty fundamental to a lot of things. But voting? That is way too far.

If a corporation owns property somewhere but none of its owners actually live there, the corporation itself still obviously has an interest in local governance. It sounds like this locality has decided that property ownership qualfies the owner to a vote. Not all the investors in that corporation get to vote, rather the corporate entity, as a singular thing, gets one vote.

One can imagine all kinds of abusive scenarios with shell corporations created just to get votes, but sounds like the judge thought that these imaginary scenarios were not demonstrated to be actually happening. Courts typically rule only on demonstrated harm or other actual evidence, not "what if" conjectures.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#86

Post by ceejayoz »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #83

I was daydreaming about, picture if a corporation buys an entire state. Say, Wyoming or West Virginia. Gemini guesses $180 billion to $250 billion. With that investment, they'd get to control who lives in the state. So, then the corporation gets to control who the Governor is. And the two Senators, and the seat in the Congress. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a single Senator have just a tremendous amount of pow…

Senators can't veto, and filibusters require 40 other Senators to play ball.

The Constitution also overrides any attempt to prevent interstate migration.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#89

Post by dfxm12 »

MattCruikshank wrote: post #83

I was daydreaming about, picture if a corporation buys an entire state. Say, Wyoming or West Virginia. Gemini guesses $180 billion to $250 billion. With that investment, they'd get to control who lives in the state. So, then the corporation gets to control who the Governor is. And the two Senators, and the seat in the Congress. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a single Senator have just a tremendous amount of pow…

FWIW, you have a risk of losing your senator every 6 years, and senators don't have power in local matters.

Plus, the way things are going with conservatives pushing hard for federalism, owning local matters could become more important, anyway. You might be onto something...

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#90

Post by nh23423fefe »

josefritzishere wrote: post #63
nh23423fefe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the opinion. > I appreciate that Plaintiff may disagree with Delaware’s policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity property owners. Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL, 55 controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote.

It fundamentally violates one person/entity/one vote. Corporations are not sentient. If you let them vote, a person gets to vote twice. There's no way around that conflict. I feel like this has to collapse on appeal or the nation is doomed.

> a person gets to vote twice.

how do they do that?

Post reply on HN