On November 18, a lower state court in St. Paul will hear arguments on whether to invalidate the November 3 vote that approved using Instant Runoff Voting. See this story.
On November 18, a lower state court in St. Paul will hear arguments on whether to invalidate the November 3 vote that approved using Instant Runoff Voting. See this story.
Yes, we need IRV
It’s important to note that the basis of the lawsuit has nothing at all to do with constitutionality or wisdom of IRV. Instead, it is about allegedly unfair campaign practices by supporters of the ballot measure. Also, it seems to me that it is unlikely to succeed — but that is an issue under Minnesota election law, about which I know nothing.
It is actually rather funny, being a Minnesota resident, to watch all of this unfold.
For decades now, the right-wing has been trying to get I&R process passed. They can very close in 1980 but the issue will probably never get put up to a vote because everyone knows that conservatives want it soley to abolish taxes and install the death penalty for gays and women who have abortions…or some such thing.
Yet, the very people who have been screaming and yelling about the need for election law reform and often the same ones who are the most opposed to IRV.
No one seriously expects the courts to invalidate the November 3rd vote if the judges do choose to rule against the pro-IRV campaign. But if it to lose, the campaign could be fined up to $5,000.
Note that the dispute is over whether the language of campaign literature. The literature listed several advocates of instant runoff voting who indeed support IRV, but had not taken a position specifically on the St. Paul measure.