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@startribune.com