David Schultz: Instant-runoff voting is destined to succeed

Here's why challenges to it based on a 1915 court case will fail.

By David Schultz

Last update: September 30, 2007 - 3:11 PM

Is instant-runoff voting unconstitutional? Not according to a recent letter by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. A recent article in this paper misinterpreted her letter -- all Swanson did was to provide reasonable legal advice to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie regarding potential lawsuits challenging instant runoff. But even if her letter had determined that the process was unconstitutional, there are three basic reasons to conclude why challenges to it based on an antiquated court case will fail.

First, the 1915 case was not about instant-runoff voting. It was about a law that effectively gave Duluth citizens two votes in some situations, a clear violation of both the Minnesota and United States constitutions. The concern of that decision was based on what the courts now call the "one person, one vote" standard. Instant runoff does not violate this standard because it does not give anyone two votes. It merely allows voters to rank their preferred candidates.

Second, the 1915 decision, whatever validity it may have once had, has been undermined and surpassed by more than years of election law and voting-rights cases. U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Reynolds vs. Sims and Baker vs. Carr refer to the dilution of voting power as a result of district lines being drawn without a balance of population. This is not the issue in instant-runoff voting.

Reynolds and Baker set the precedent for the "one person, one vote" standard in voting-rights cases. Their logic and holdings do not prevent establishment of instant-runoff voting. Each voter has the same voting power as any other, regardless of where that person lives. Voters may rank their voting preferences, but all votes are weighted equally. Nothing here either contracts or expands anyone's voting power, and no dilution or double-counting of votes exists.

More importantly, other election law cases have effectively overruled the logic of the 1915 Minnesota case. Even if laws allowing individuals to rank their candidates were considered unconstitutional at one time, a series of cases since the passage of the federal Voting Rights Act in 1965 have upheld numerous laws to make it easier for people to have their preferences counted. These rulings, seeking to guarantee voting rights for minorities, have rendered obsolete the 1915 decision and mandate that state and local governments develop voting mechanisms that enhance voter choice.

Finally, since 1915, American democracy has matured. The political process now seeks to provide more choices than it once did, as evidenced by numerous court decisions that have made it possible for third-party candidates such as Jesse Ventura to run for office. The courts, mindful of voters' demands for more options, have properly responded by interpreting election laws to empower and not limit options on election day.

David Schultz is a professor in the Hamline University Graduate School of Management, where he teaches government ethics, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota, where he teaches election law and state constitutional law. He is a board member of Fair Vote Minnesota.

Recent Commentary stories

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - September 30, 2007

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - Google may not win its fight against the Chinese government, but bless it for trying. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS