Instant runoff voting has its first hurdle - a lawsuit

12/21/2007

A citizens group filed suit to stop instant runoff voting in Minneapolis. The group says the ranking system is too confusing.


By ROCHELLE OLSON,
Star Tribune
December 20, 2007


A group called the Minnesota Voters Alliance filed suit Thursday in Hennepin County District Court seeking to keep instant-runoff voting from starting up in Minneapolis.

The group's lawyer, Erick Kaardal, cited an opinion from Attorney General Lori Swanson saying the system of ranking candidates by preference probably isn't permitted by the state Constitution. That opinion, issued this year, stopped short of calling the system unconstitutional.

Kaardal also referenced a 1915 state Supreme Court case that struck down a Duluth system that ranked candidates.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of the city's instant-runoff voter charter amendment, arguing that the method infringes upon an individual's right to vote, right of association and due process. Named in the suit are Swanson, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Minneapolis voters overwhelmingly approved the charter change in 2006, and city officials have been preparing to use it during the 2009 city election.

The method requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gains a majority (50 percent plus 1 vote), the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped.

Then the second-place votes cast by supporters of that candidate are added to the remaining candidates. The process continues until one candidate gains a majority.

The suit noted that each victorious city candidate in 2006 won with a plurality, meaning they won despite receiving less than 50 percent of the votes cast.

Jeremy Hanson, spokesman for Rybak, said "The reality is in 2006, the Minneapolis voters approved a measure that calls for instant-runoff voting for local elections. It's now our job to make that happen."

Opponents say the instant-runoff system is confusing, open to manipulation and depresses turnout.

Andy Cilek, executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance said, "This is the hanging chad problem-times-1,000."

Council president a foe

At a news conference on the steps of City Hall, Cilek also argued that a personal survey of some 300 voters showed widespread confusion about the proposition. Minneapolis residents didn't know what they approved, he said, adding: "It's not the will of the voters when they didn't know what they were voting for."

Council President Barbara Johnson said she's happy about the suit. "I hate instant-runoff voting," said Johnson, who voted against putting it on the ballot.

She said it's especially confusing to senior citizens, who can be counted on to vote.

Supporters of the instant-runoff voting have said the Minneapolis method and the Duluth method struck down in the 1915 case have significant differences.

In Minneapolis, when the first-place votes of those supporting the lowest-ranking candidate are eliminated, they are replaced one-for-one by their second-choice votes. In Duluth, the second-choice votes were added to the first-choice votes.

The Duluth approach effectively gave some voters more weight than others, the court said in finding the provision unconstitutional.

David Schultz, a former board member of FairVote Minnesota, which is pushing the instant runoff, and an expert in election law said the group's arguments are weak.

The Duluth case, he said, wasn't about instant-runoff voting, but a "bizarre procedure" that doesn't apply now.

A spokesman for Ritchie said that the attorney general's office would be handling the case; Swanson declined to comment.