The Minnesota Supreme Court on June 11 unanimously rejected legal arguments against Minneapolis's elections moving forward this November with instant runoff voting for mayor and city council and choice voting for park board. FairVote Minnesota, an intervenor in the case, said the Court has "blazed a path that every community in our state can follow toward better elections and a stronger democracy." Saint Paul and Duluth are also debating adoption of IRV.Meanwhile top political leaders in San Jose (CA) participated in the New America Foundation's June 11th forum on adopting IRV, the city council in Hoboken (NJ) passed a pro-IRV measure this month and three political scientists in Washington issued a report analyzing the November 2008 IRV elections in Pierce County. The latter report found that IRV "does an effective job of simulating both a primary and general in one election," while making it less costly to run - only three of the six biggest spenders won.
- FairVote Minnesota statement on Court victory
- Minnesota Supreme Court ruling
- Coverage of IRV forum in San Jose
- New America Foundation report on IRV in San Jose
- Column on case for IRV in Torrance (CA)
- Coverage of pro-IRV resolution in Hoboken
- Pierce County analysis by political scientist
- FairVote blog on recent IRV successes
British home secretary Alan Johnson and several other leaders of the United Kingdom's governing Labor Party are proposing instant runoff voting for elections to its House of Commons, potentially augmented with proportional voting. Seen by many as the heir apparent of the Labor Party, Johnson announced his support for a national referendum on adoption of the “Alternative Vote plus” electoral reform plan recommended in 1998 by a commission led by Lord Roy Jenkins. The alternative vote (the British term for IRV) would be used to elect most seats, with additional “top up” seats elected based on voters’ overall party preferences within regions. Not all Labor leaders support proportional voting, but there is a growing consensus to adopt IRV -- with some calling
for its adoption in time for the general election next year.
On May 13th, the Minnesota Supreme Court started hearing arguments in the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. The City of Minneapolis and FairVote Minnesota. The ruling will determine whether or not instant runoff voting and choice voting are legal under the Minnesota Constitution. The case was initially rejected by the Hennepin County District Court in a January 14th ruling, but the Minnesota Voters Alliance decided to appeal the ruling. The court declared that the plaintiffs had "failed to demonstrate that IRV is either unconstitutional or contrary to public policy."
