Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers
Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers was decided by the Michigan Circuit Court (Jackson County) in 1975. The plaintiff alleged that the ranked-choice voting system adopted by Ann Arbor, Michigan, voters via charter amendment in 1974 violated the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section II, of the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Circuit Court ruled against the plaintiff, finding that Ann Arbor's electoral system did not violate the federal or state constitution.[1]
Background
- See also: Electoral systems in Michigan
On November 5, 1974, voters in Ann Arbor, Michigan, adopted a charter amendment establishing ranked-choice voting for mayoral elections (at the time, this system was sometimes referred to as the Ware System, Majority Preferential Vote, or MPV). 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.[1][2][3]
In the April 7, 1975, mayoral election, three candidates were listed on the ballot. Results were as follows:[1]
- First-preference votes for James E. Stephenson: 14,453
- First-preference votes for Albert Wheeler: 11,815
- First-preference votes for Carol Ernst: 3,181
- First-preference votes for miscellaneous write-in candidates: 52
No candidate received a majority of first-preference votes. As a result, first-preference votes for Ernst and write-in candidates were dropped from the tally; second-preference votes from these ballots were distributed accordingly among the remaining candidates. The results were as follows:[1]
- Wheeler: 14,684
- Stephenson: 14,563
Wheeler won an outright majority of the remaining votes, thereby winning the election.[1]
Case history and decision
Stephenson brought suit against the Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers, arguing that the city's electoral system for mayoral elections violated the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section II, of the Michigan Constitution. Stephenson's argument was summarized as follows in the circuit court's ruling:
| “ | The crux of Plaintiff Stephenson's claim of unconstitutionality is that preferential voting under this Charter amendment creates a classification that restricts the franchise of certain voters and thus treats them unequally. This claimed classification results from certain voters having their second choice ballots counted while the second choice of other voters whose candidate remains in the race, are not so counted. This creates separate classes of voters and affords the vote of some, more weight than others, Plaintiff asserts. Plaintiff claims there is no 'compelling state reason or interest' for creating such classifications, that would render this preferential voting system constitutional.[4] | ” |
In November 1975, Circuit Judge James G. Fleming ruled against Stephenson, upholding Ann Arbor's mayoral electoral system. He wrote the following in his opinion:
| “ | Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any true classification restricting the franchise of certain voters. Even if such a classification were found, this Court finds that a compelling state interest exists that would permit a classification in vote counting under such a M.P.V. system, as the City of Ann Arbor provides in its charter. The State does possess a great interest in speedy determination of elections, reduced election costs, involvement of a greater base of voters, affording greater voice in government by minorities and having the elected officer-holder be one who is the choice of a majority of the voters.[4] | ” |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Jackson, "Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers," November 1975
- ↑ FairVote, "Electoral Systems," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ MinneapolisMN.gov, "Frequently Asked Questions about Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
