Minnesota Supreme Court OKs instant runoff voting; St. Paul may consider it

Pioneer Press Politics

By Steve Karnowski
Associated Press
Updated: 06/11/2009 01:04:35 PM CDT


Minneapolis can go ahead with its plans for instant runoff voting for city offices, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today in a decision that gives St. Paul and Duluth a green light to consider it as well.

The justices rejected a challenge by a citizens' group on the constitutionality of the system, an alternative method in which voters rank their choices for each office instead of casting just one vote for one candidate in a race.

The system, also known as ranked choice voting, eliminates the need for separate primary and general elections in cities like Minneapolis with nonpartisan primaries. Proponents say it saves money, increases turnout, discourages negative campaigning and gives third-party candidates a better chance of being heard. Critics say it's too complicated and violates the principle of one person, one vote.

But the Supreme Court said the IRV method adopted by Minneapolis does not violate the U.S. or Minnesota constitutions, so Minneapolis is free to try it. The decision affirmed a lower-court decision that also backed the system.

FairVote Minnesota, which supports IRV, is pushing for a ballot measure that would allow St. Paul voters to decide in November whether to adopt the system. The City Council blocked a move to put it on the ballot last year while it waited for the Supreme Court decision, said Jean Massey, the group's executive director. She said she expects the St. Paul council to decide soon whether to move forward. Her group also plans a petition drive to put the issue on the ballot in Duluth, probably next year.
Minneapolis plans to use the system in this November's municipal elections.

"Today's State Supreme Court decision provides certainty to Minneapolis voters," City Attorney Susan Segal said in a statement. "The Court's decision means that the City can continue to move forward with implementing ranked choice voting — the method chosen overwhelmingly by Minneapolis voters in the 2006 voter referendum."

Erick Kaardal, the attorney for opponents including the Minnesota Voters Alliance, said the decision doesn't prevent them from filing lawsuits after an IRV election to contest how the votes were counted, and that they likely will. He also said they'll continue to campaign against IRV in St. Paul and Duluth.

"The battle has just begun," Kaardal said.

Massey said their strategy is to promote IRV at the local level for at least a few more years before trying to get it adopted for statewide elections.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, said the issue for the high court wasn't whether IRV is a good system, only whether Minneapolis voters had the right to choose it.

"Reducing the costs and inconvenience to voters, candidates, and taxpayers by holding only one election, increasing voter turnout, encouraging less divisive campaigns, and fostering greater minority representation in multiple-seat elections are all legitimate interests for the City to foster," the Supreme Count said. "Whether and to what degree implementation of IRV will achieve those benefits remains to be seen. But it is plausible that IRV may advance one or more of these interests."