A citizens group said Tuesday that it will sue if the St. Paul City Council tries to stop a ballot initiative that could change the way council members are elected.
A recently certified petition signed by more than 5,300 people would put a question on the November ballot asking St. Paul voters whether they want instant-runoff voting, a system approved by Minneapolis voters in 2006.
But the St. Paul city attorney's office has said the council doesn't have to put the question on the November ballot because changing the city's voting system would more than likely violate the state's Constitution.
More than likely, however, is not a good enough reason to deny the petition, said Jay Benanav, former council member and attorney for the Better Ballot Campaign. The council could only refuse to put the question to the voters if the question were "manifestly unconstitutional," meaning that it clearly violates the Constitution, Benanav said.
Instant-runoff voting, which requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference, hasn't been deemed unconstitutional, so there's no reason for the council to stop voters from deciding whether they want it in St. Paul, he said.
"Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of petitioning," said John Hottinger, a former state senator who is working with Benanav.
City Attorney John Choi, who issued a 10-page opinion on the matter last week, disagrees.
"With all due respect to the proponents of IRV, this exact argument has already been litigated at the Court of Appeals, and the appellate court flatly rejected this same argument," he said. He cited a 2005 case in which Minneapolis refused to put an amendment legalizing marijuana on the ballot.
