December 11, 2008 – Oral arguments in the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) lawsuit brought by the Minnesota Voters Alliance (Plaintiff) against the City of Minneapolis (Defendant) were heard today in Hennepin County District Court before Judge George McGunnigle. FairVote Minnesota has intervened to join Minneapolis as a co-defendant in the case.  

The plaintiff’s attorney, Erik Kardaal, began the arguments, alleging that that IRV (technically known as Single Transferable Vote) is unconstitutional because it discriminates against some voters, specifically those “lucky enough to have voted for the loser”. These voters get two votes while those who vote for the winner only get one.  He further argued that the 1915 Brown v Smallwood case, in which another preferential voting method (Bucklin method) was found unconstitutional in Minnesota because it effectively gave some voters more votes than others, sets the precedent against ALL ranked voting methods in Minnesota.

FairVote Minnesota attorney, Jim Dorsey (one of FairVote Minnesota’s pro bono attorneys) responded that Smallwood is “deadwood” and not relevant because the voting method at issue in that case was completely different from Instant Runoff Voting, which treats all votes equally.  It is not the method of casting ballots that’s at issue, but the method for counting ballots. Unlike the Bucklin method used in Duluth nearly 100 years ago, Instant Runoff Voting treats every voter exactly the same.

Assistant City of Minneapolis’ attorney, Lisa Needham, underscored the plaintiff’s misunderstanding of how the Instant Runoff Voting process works and made clear that the plaintiff has not succeeded in meeting its strict burden of proving a legislative action of a municipality unconstitutional.

She highlighted that IRV was passed with 65% approval by the voters of Minneapolis, providing a strong mandate for the City of Minneapolis to use IRV so long as it does not impose a burden on the voters.  She also argued that the Minnesota Attorney General’s opinion, which stated that state law preempts a home-rule city like Minneapolis from implementing an alternative voting system is misguided because it fails to consider all parts of relevant statutes, which when reconciled, give clear authority to home-rule cities to use an alternative voting system.  

In closing arguments, Jim Dorsey boosted Minneapolis’ defense of its authority under home rule to use Instant Runoff Voting, citing the decision in Johnson v. City of New York (N.Y. 1937), which upheld New York City’s authority to use a preferential voting system and cautioned that the court should be very slow in determining constitutionality unless such a system clearly appears to be unconstitutional. 

He also cited U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Holder v. Hall (1994), in which Justice Thomas defended preference voting in at-large elections as an effective means to achieve proportional distribution of political power.

Today’s hearing concluded oral arguments in the case. In closing remarks, Judge McGunnigle highlighted the importance of this case, which he anticipates will move to the appellate courts, and indicated his intent to issue a decision as rapidly as feasible.