In 1995, the case of Cane v. Worcester County, Maryland was taken to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case began when plaintiffs alleged that the election system used by Worcester County was illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The county used a winner-take-all, at-large, which the plaintiffs claimed diluted minority voting strenght. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the current elections system did violate Section 2.

When the case was taken to the Fourth Circuit, FairVote submitted an amicus brief supporting the use of cumulative voting in the county. FairVote argued that cumulative voting was a legal and appropriate remedy for the Section 2 violation.

Amicus Brief Filed in Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
 

October 19th 2009
A better election system
Lowell Sun

Election expert Doug Amy explains how choice voting can "inject new blood" into the elections of Lowell (MA), and give voters a greater incentive to participate.

October 16th 2009
Haven't Detroit voters spoken enough?
Livingston Daily

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.

August 21st 2009
Black candidate for Euclid school board to test new voting system
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Limited voting, a form of proportional voting, will be used in Euclid (OH), in the hopes of allowing better representation of minorities.

July 2nd 2009
Reforming Albany
New York Times

FairVote's Rob Richie responds in a letter to the editor making the case for proportional voting systems to bring substantive reform to New York's legislature.