For immediate release

Contact: Kelly O’Brien, kellyobrien@visi.com, 612-227-9102

Jeanne Massey, jeanne.massey@fairvotemn.org, 763-807-2550

FairVote Minnesota Responds to Lawsuit Against Instant Runoff Voting

Minneapolis, MN (December 20, 2007)—FairVote Minnesota, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization leading the effort to institute instant runoff voting in Minnesota, is issuing a response to news of a lawsuit brought against the City of Minneapolis and various elected officials by an Eden Prairie-based organization that is opposed to the pending use of instant runoff voting (a.k.a. single transferable vote or ranked choice voting) in the City of Minneapolis.

The lawsuit alleges that instant runoff voting (IRV) is unconstitutional and violates the principle of “one person, one vote.” Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that voters won’t understand how to vote using instant runoff voting.

FairVote Minnesota presents the following facts as guidance in the discussion of this lawsuit.

1. IRV has been upheld on the principle of "one person, one vote" in legal challenges following its adoption in Cambridge, Mass. (Moore v. Election Commissioners of Cambridge (1941) and in Ann Arbor, Mich. (Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers (1975).

Sources: http://www.rwinters.com/docs/moore.htm

http://www.fairvote.org/library/statutes/legal/irv.htm

2. No legal challenges are threatening instant runoff voting anywhere it's in use—San Francisco, Calif.; Cambridge, Mass.; Burlington, Vermont; Takoma Park, Maryland and Cary and Hendersonville, North Carolina.

3. Election exit polls in cities using IRV all show voters in overwhelming numbers not only understand IRV, but prefer it to the old way of voting. The share of voters indicating they understood IRV well or very well the first time using IRV: San Francisco – 87%, Burlington – 89%; Takoma Park – 88%; Cary – 95%; Hendersonville – 86%. http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/Exit%20Survey%20Summary_2007_FINAL.doc

4. As discussed in an opinion piece in the September 30, 2007 Star Tribune by attorney and professor David Schultz, the 1915 legal case cited in the lawsuit, Brown v. Smallwood, was not about instant runoff voting. It was about a voting method that effectively gave Duluth citizens two votes in some situations, a clear violation of both the Minnesota and United States constitutions. The concern of that decision was based on what the courts now call the "one person, one vote" standard. IRV does not violate this standard because it does not give anyone two votes. It simply allows voters to rank their preferred candidates.

5. Schultz further explained that since 1915 American democracy has matured. The political process now seeks to provide more choices for voters than it once did, as evidenced by numerous ballot access court decisions that have made it possible for third party candidates such as Jesse Ventura to run for office. The courts, mindful of voters’ demands for more options when voting, have properly responded to the demand of citizens in interpreting election laws to empower and not limit options on election day.

6. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs advocate to keep low-turnout municipal primaries and to make them partisan to ensure all parties are represented on the ballot. However, IRV shares the goal of ensuring choice on the ballot. In fact, it makes sure that all candidates appear on the general election ballot, regardless of party. With IRV, no candidate can be eliminated in a low-turnout election whose chances might be different in a general election.

The following are suggested sources for further information on instant runoff voting.

Prof. David Schultz, Hamline University. 651-523-2858

Rob Richie, executive director, FairVote (national). 301-270-4616

Tony Solgard, former president, FairVote Minnesota. 612-242-5642

Jeanne Massey, executive director, FairVote Minnesota. 612-850-6897

Council Member Elizabeth Glidden, chair of Minneapolis elections committee. 612-673-2208

Steven Hill, director, Political Reform Program, New America Foundation. 415-810-2701, or office 415-665-5044

Municipal Voting System Reform: Overcoming the Legal Obstacles by Tony Solgard and Paul Landskroener in Bench & Bar of Minnesota, October 2002: www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm

www.fairvotemn.org

www.fairvote.org (national)

###