On March 2, 2006, FairVote and California Common Cause filed an amicus brief to defend the California Voting Rights Act and argue that proportional voting systems are sensible remedies in such cases.

Adopted in 2001, the California Voting Rights Act showcases how states can protect voting rights even when Congress may weaken the federal Voting Rights Act. Among other provisions, the Act allows plaintiffs to challenge winner-take-all, at-large election systems when racially polarized voting exists. The Lawyers Commitee for Civil Rights filed
such a challenge in Sanchez v. City of Modesto, but a judge struck down the Act.

FairVote and Common Cause argue that remedies like proportional voting systems can address the impact of winner-take-all, at-large voting methods. Beyond this case, FairVote urges other states to consider state Voting Rights Acts and, for those challenging winner-take-all at-large systems, to look to proportional systems as a sensible remedy.

Amicus Brief Filed in Sanchez v. City of Modesto, March 2, 2006
 

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.