Let courts, not the City Council, rule on its constitutionality.

June 30, 2008

City councils are not courts. It isn't the role of a council to settle disputes over constitutionality.

It also shouldn't be up to council members to keep charter amendments that originate via petition off the November ballot. That would defeat the purpose of allowing charter changes to spring from the people by petition, as well as from charter commissions and city councils. Designers of the petition option for city-charter changes recognized that sometimes, councils and commissions are hostile to worthy new ideas.

That's why the Better Ballot Campaign, which backs instant-runoff voting, is right to threaten legal action if the St. Paul City Council this week blocks its petition-generated charter amendment from the November ballot. They've got a worthy, albeit disputed, idea, as well as 5,386 verified signatures, nearly 300 more than required to set a charter change in motion. The council shouldn't stop it, even though six of its seven members have indicated their opposition.

The state Supreme Court has long held that only when a
proposed amendment is "manifestly unconstitutional" can a city council
stand between petitioners and the ballot. That much certainty cannot be claimed about the constitutional impermissibility of IRV.

St. Paul city attorney John Choi has advised the council that he does not believe IRV will win that court test. But the Better Ballotgroup makes potent arguments to the contrary, with the help of legal talent including former City Council Member Jay Benanav.

A number of municipal governments around the country -- San Francisco; Cambridge, Mass., and Burlington, Vt., among them -- are using IRV, and have survived court tests. A court challenge is also pending in Minneapolis, where voters embraced IRV in 2006 for future city elections.

That case is likely to wind up at the state Supreme Court, probably next year. That's the rightful venue -- not the City Council -- for determining whether Minnesota cities are free under the state Constitution to adopt a new voting method in municipal elections. If IRV is ruled unconstitutional by the high court, that won't be the end
of the story.

The list of IRV fans is growing as its advantages come into focus. IRV promises Minnesotans that they can indulge their third-party impulses without sacrificing majority rule. They can eliminate low-turnout primaries in nonpartisan elections, which would give more opportunity to challengers. (That's why some incumbents resist IRV.) They can look forward to less negative campaigns, as candidates seek to maximize their second-choice votes.

A negative ruling by the high court would only move the IRV fight to the Legislature, where constitutional amendments originate. In that venue, a vote on IRV in St. Paul this fall, no matter its outcome, will carry considerable weight. The City Council should let the vote
proceed.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

June 25, 2008

Voters make call on charter amendment

When Chris Havens reported on June 13 ("Instant Runoff Voting ...")that "now it's up to council members to decide" whether St. Paul gets to vote on instant runoff voting, he got it wrong.

The Minnesota Legislature laid out the basic process in 1907 with a
few modifications over the years. Under current statute, there are four ways to get a charter amendment. Three of them require approval by the voters at an election. One of the three methods goes back to the original 1907 statute. Under current law, registered St. Paul voters may petition to place the amendment on the ballot and upon successful petition, the charter commission shall propose it, and then those amendments "shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election." (Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12.)

In the case of instant runoff voting (aka ranked preference voting) a petition to amend the charter was circulated by volunteers for the Better Ballot Campaign. Over 7,000 signatures were submitted and the city clerk or Ramsey County elections found that the petition met all the statutory requirements.

Havens correctly reported that there are a sufficient number of petitioners.

So there is no wiggle room for the council.

If the city tries to subvert the will of over 7,000 petitioners, they are asking for a fight.

GENA BERGLUND

ST. PAUL