Fw: [Winona] Instant Runoff Voting Legal Challenges

Tue Sep 25 09:52:14 CDT 2007

Craig asked that I forward my message to him to the forum.  Ruth
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Craig Brooks 
To: Ruth Marg 
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] Instant Runoff Voting Legal Challenges

would you send this to the whole group or I could forward it.  You make good points and provide useful info.
Craig

----- Original Message ----
From: Ruth Marg <tvmama at rconnect.com>
To: Craig Brooks <hswcb at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:18:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] Instant Runoff Voting Legal Challenges

Craig you asked if Winona School Board could go to district wide seats.  If the law hasn't changed it is up to the board to decide if they want district wide representation by each board member.  Quite some time ago when the two extra seats where added they added as at-large members.  The talk at that time was if all seats were at large, only the people of the city of Winona might be represented because outlying areas had smaller populations and probably couldn't win a seat.   They divide the district up by population.    Lots of this was at the time of closing schools in rural areas and citizens felt that not only would they lose their school but also the vote.   Ruth Marg
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Craig Brooks 
  To: WOD 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:21 AM
  Subject: [Winona] Instant Runoff Voting Legal Challenges

  [Winona Online Democracy]

  I still support going to IRV for our elections.  Having it tested out in Mpls. would be very useful.  I hope this challenge fails.
  Does anyone know if our School Board can go to all seats being district wide instead of having most be representing only specific geographic areas?  If that could happen, I really think IRA would work well for School Board elections.  It could save time and money by not needing to have a Primary.  What do you think?
  Craig Brooks
  **************************************

  Minneapolis' instant-runoff voting plan may be unconstitutional
  Debate rages over whether a 1915 Duluth precedent poses constitutional issues for the method passed by Minneapolis voters.

  By Steve Brandt, Star Tribune

  Last update: September 19, 2007 – 11:21 PM

  Minneapolis voters have approved a plan for instant-runoff voting, but the state constitution may not allow it, according to a new attorney general's opinion. 
  The opinion, obtained by the Star Tribune, doesn't explicitly say the Minneapolis system of ranking candidates in order of preference is unconstitutional.

  But it concludes that if the closest case to a precedent is followed, instant-runoff voting probably isn't permitted by the state constitution.

  The voting method requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gains a majority, the lowest candidate is dropped and 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.

  Minneapolis voters approved the change in 2005, and city officials have been trying to institute it for the 2009 city election. 

  The new opinion fans a debate that had already been raging between supporters and opponents of instant runoff.

  Opponents have threatened a legal challenge, citing a 1915 Minnesota Supreme Court case that struck down a Duluth system that also ranked voters.

  Minneapolis, Duluth differences

  But supporters, such as Roseville lawyer Bruce Kennedy, say there are important distinctions between the Minneapolis approach and the Duluth method struck down by the court.

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

  Andrew Cilek, an opponent trying to challenge the Minneapolis system, called the opinion "interesting. We feel the same way." 

  The attorney general's opinion also finds statutory issues with instant-runoff voting.

  It said that although cities with their own charters such as Minneapolis have substantial authority, other law preempts local charter power when it comes to general elections.

  'Interested in what the courts say'

  It also suggests that the secretary of state's office needs to adopt rules to permit experimental use of instant runoff.

  Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said the attorney general's response went beyond the questions he posed about procedures for instant runoff. "I'm interested in what the courts say," he said in reaction to the constitutional warning.

  In Minneapolis, Council Member Elizabeth Glidden chairs the council's Election Committee. "We recognize that there is not perfect clarity on this issue," she said. "We think that the body of existing law will support our decision to use ranked-choice voting."

  Meanwhile, a group of state and local election officials working to install instant-runoff voting plans to meet again in January to consider changes to be sought in the 2008 Legislature.

  Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438

  Steve Brandt • sbrandt at startribune.com

  _______________________________________________
  This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
  All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
  No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
  To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
  http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
  Any problems or suggestions can be directed to 
  mailto:winona-admin at mnforum.org 
  If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
   http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mapnp.Geeks.ORG/pipermail/winona/attachments/20070925/66d6e12e/attachment.html