Comments on: Legal Challenge to St. Paul IRV Set for November 18

By: Rob Richie

Rob Richie — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:35:23 +0000

No one seriously expects the courts to invalidate the November 3rd vote if the judges do choose to rule against the pro-IRV campaign. But if it to lose, the campaign could be fined up to $5,000.

Note that the dispute is over whether the language of campaign literature. The literature listed several advocates of instant runoff voting who indeed support IRV, but had not taken a position specifically on the St. Paul measure.

By: ETJB

ETJB — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:46:34 +0000

It is actually rather funny, being a Minnesota resident, to watch all of this unfold.

For decades now, the right-wing has been trying to get I&R process passed. They can very close in 1980 but the issue will probably never get put up to a vote because everyone knows that conservatives want it soley to abolish taxes and install the death penalty for gays and women who have abortions…or some such thing.

Yet, the very people who have been screaming and yelling about the need for election law reform and often the same ones who are the most opposed to IRV.

By: Bob Richard

Bob Richard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:34:41 +0000

It’s important to note that the basis of the lawsuit has nothing at all to do with constitutionality or wisdom of IRV. Instead, it is about allegedly unfair campaign practices by supporters of the ballot measure. Also, it seems to me that it is unlikely to succeed — but that is an issue under Minnesota election law, about which I know nothing.

By: SEbastian

SEbastian — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:38:49 +0000

Yes, we need IRV