- Instant-runoff voting has fatal flaws - Star Tribune Editorial 5-13/09

It can result in more votes than there are voters, and it can put voters in the position of casting a ballot that can harm their preferred candidate. (Click here for entire article)

- MN Supreme Court Allows IRV.  This will not stop our efforts. 

Despite media spin, the ruling did not declare IRV to be constitutional.  Since no IRV election had occurred providing direct evidence that IRV had actually disenfranchised a voter, our arguments, the Court claimed, were speculative and constituted no “proof.”  This allowed the Court to reject the facial claim without regard to facts.  And, although the Court addressed some of our arguments in a general way, none of them were actually refuted.

The ruling was misguided, and contradicted itself.  For example, on page one it states that IRV did not contravene any of the principles in Brown (which is false; it violates every principle in Brown), but later in the opinion, the court added to that statement, “at least in regards to this facial constitutional challenge.”   In other words, the ruling does not contradict our claims, it merely dismissed our facial challenge, leaving open the possibility of another lawsuit after Minneapolis holds an election from which evidence can be gathered.

We are in the process of gathering evidence from the Aspen, Colorado election (see link below) and other locations throughout the country for a possible federal complaint.

See attorney Erick Kardaal's comments here.

Star Tribune finally admits one of their “expert” sources is not a neutral party

At the urging of the Minnesota Voters Alliance the Star Tribune issued this correction on April 22, 2009: 

“A story on Page B4 Jan. 15 should have noted that David Schultz is an advocate of instant-runoff voting and is a former board member of FairVote Minnesota, an organization that supports a shift to elections that allow voters to rank candidates.”

Although we thank the Star Tribune for issuing this long overdue correction, we hope that in the future the news media will remember to identify the potential bias of their so-called “expert” sources, and stop portraying activists as objective observers.

In Steve Brandt's recent article, "Instant Runoff ruling tests Minneapolis' resolve," Council Member Elizabeth Glidden said "It's highly unlikely that the U. S. Supreme Court would want to weigh in with a state issue."

While Supreme Court review is discretionary, she's wrong about what is at stake -- voter rights embodied in the state and federal constitutions. And it is not just a local issue. The rights affected by instant runoff voting (IRV) and being fought over have national significance.

It appears that Ms. Glidden either failed to read the court briefs and recognize that the legal claims made fall under both the Minnesota and United States Constitutions or she was just dodging the question of whether the city would appeal if it loses at the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Simply stated, IRV forces voters to either dilute the strength of their ballot by not ranking all the candidates, or to rank candidates they do not prefer at all. Thus, the voter must either violate his own equal protection rights (14th Amendment), because other ballots would carry more weight, or violate his own rights of "political" association (First Amendment), by having to "vote" for a candidate he or she opposes.

IRV also violates the right to association in that a voter can unknowingly cause harm to his favorite candidate simply by raising him in rank, or ranking him as a first choice. No voter should ever be put in a position of being able to cause his or her favored candidate to lose simply by voting for that candidate.

By calling these objectionable characteristics of preferential voting "an acceptable constitutional risk," the lower court also admitted that IRV does harm a voter's "right to cast an effective vote for the candidate of his choice."

These particular constitutional issues, as presented by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, have never been adjudicated anywhere in the United States since Brown v. Smallwood. And no court, until the recent Hennepin County District Court decision, has admitted that IRV harms the effectiveness of a voter's vote.

No one knows if the U.S. Supreme Court would take an IRV case, but because of the unique issues and arguments presented under the United States Constitution and made against Minneapolis, this case could lead the way to protect the rights of all voters.

ANDY CILEK - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE

- PRESS RELEASE, 3/17/09: The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review 

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order on March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of elections constitutional. 

The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review, as did the City, bypassing the Court of Appeals process because of the lower court’s failure to follow established Supreme Court precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.   

The Minnesota Voters Alliance is confident the Supreme Court will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s declaration that in an IRV system:

The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.