Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis was decided by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 2009. The plaintiffs alleged that Minneapolis' ranked-choice voting system violated their voting and associational rights as guaranteed by the Minnesota and United States constitutions. A state trial court ruled against the plaintiffs; this ruling was affirmed by the state supreme court on June 11, 2009.[1]
Background
- See also: Electoral systems in Minnesota
A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. This system is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff voting system.[2][3]
On November 6, 2006, Minneapolis voters approved a ballot initiative providing for the use of ranked-choice voting in elections for the following municipal offices: mayor, city council, park and recreation board, library board, and board of estimate and taxation. The initiative was approved by a 65-35 percent margin.[1]
Case history
On December 20, 2007, Minnesota Voters Alliance and six registered Minneapolis voters filed suit in Hennepin County District Court against the City of Minneapolis and Mark Ritchie, in his capacity as Minnesota's secretary of state. The plaintiffs alleged that Minneapolis' ranked-choice voting system violated "their right to vote, right to political association, and right to equal protection under one-person, one-vote principles" as guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on August 28, 2008. On January 13, 2009, Judge George McGunnigle ruled against the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the state appellate court, then petitioned for accelerated review by the state supreme court. The state supreme court granted the request for accelerated review.[1]
Decision
On June 11, 2009, the state supreme court ruled against the plaintiffs, upholding Minneapolis' ranked-choice voting system. The court's opinion read, in part, as follows:[1]
| “ | If government regulation severely burdens the right to vote, the regulation cannot survive unless it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. ... [We] have determined that appellants have failed to establish that [ranked-choice voting] on its face burdens the right to vote, and even if it could be construed as a burden, that burden is minimal. Accordingly, the question, if there is some burden imposed, is whether there are 'important regularly interests' that justify the burden. ... 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. Whether and to what degree implementation of [RCV] will achieve those benefits remains to be seen. But it is plausible that [RCV] may advance one or more of these interests. In the context of this facial challenge, that possibility is sufficient to justify any minimal burden imposed by [RCV].[4] | ” |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of Minnesota, "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis: Opinion," June 11, 2009
- ↑ FairVote, "Electoral Systems," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ MinneapolisMN.gov, "Frequently Asked Questions about Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
