Instant runoff election idea goes to St. Paul Charter Commission

Wants issue on ballot, but foes cite shortcomings

By Jason Hoppin  jhoppin@pioneerpress.com  03/23/2008

For the first time since 1991, St. Paul residents could be asked this November to vote on whether to change the city charter.

The vote could lead to a fundamental switch in the way the city's mayor and council are elected, by ditching primaries and instead asking voters to rank their choices on a single ballot. Several cities, including Minneapolis, have adopted so-called instant runoff voting, and supporters say it revs up interest in politics by holding only a single vote, with all comers competing down to the wire.

"It gets more candidates in front of voters when more voters are at the polls," said Ellen Brown, a campaign coordinator for the St. Paul Better Ballot Campaign.

But detractors, including those behind a Minnesota lawsuit challenging instant runoff voting, argue the system has problems on several fronts, including violating the U.S. Constitution. They concede that it looks fair at first glance, but say problems lie in the details.

"It's the hanging-chad problem times 1,000," said Andy Cilek, executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the group that brought the suit against Minneapolis and who predicts the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Instant runoff voting works by having voters rank their preferred candidates. If no candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her supporters' second-choice votes are redistributed throughout the remaining field of candidates. The process is repeated until someone gets a majority.

Over the last year, orange-shirted backers of instant runoff voting in St. Paul have stationed themselves at parades, festivals and other civic events, gathering more than enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot as part of November's presidential vote.

But due partly to concerns that the petition's ballot question is too complicated, those supporters are trying to enlist the city to get the issue before voters using simpler wording. While reserving the right to hand over their signatures to the Ramsey County Elections Office before the Aug. 12 deadline, they are now hoping the St. Paul Charter Commission — if not the City Council — will put the question on the ballot for them.

"If either body wants to put it on the ballot directly, we're certainly open to that," Brown said.

But an informal survey of the City Council shows it may be closely divided on the issue, and that could leave it up to the Charter Commission.

The commission will hold a public meeting this evening to solicit comments from the public. Shortly after that, the group could take a vote on whether to put it on the ballot, said Robert Connor, who heads a commission subcommittee looking at the issue.

Supporters point to a number of potential advantages, including saving money by eliminating primaries, but also keeping several candidates' voices in the campaign until Election Day. And because candidates might need the support of an opponent's constituency, it could lead to less-divisive campaigns.

But detractors — and some elections officials — have raised concerns. The federal government hasn't certified a multiple-choice ballot machine for use during elections, a must under Minnesota law. Detractors also say it might confuse voters in St. Paul, who could end up voting for local officials using a ranked ballot and for school board candidates — whose elections are held under state, not local, law — using the current method.

"I could not recommend a system where you elect city candidates on one ballot and then you switch to a different ballot for the school board," Ramsey County Elections Manager Joe Mansky said.

Ranked-choice supporters say there are ways around that problem, including switching school board elections to even-numbered years. They also say the current voting machines could be used to determine whether any candidate receives a majority. If not, the ballots could be hand-counted to determine the winner. Mansky said that would lead to delays in results.

Looming over the debate is the ongoing suit over instant runoff voting in Minneapolis, which a Hennepin County judge could decide over the summer.

John Lindback, Oregon's director of elections who also serves as head of the National Association of Elections Officials — a group that has not taken a position on instant runoff voting — said he opposes ranked-choice ballots, and not just because of the headaches they cause for those who run elections.

Lindback points out that without a majority, voters who cast their choice for the least-favored candidate could end up swinging the election, since those voter's second choices are counted once their preferred candidate is eliminated. That means some votes matter more than others, Lindback said.

"Florida taught us that we need to count quickly and accurately, and that we need to treat all votes alike," Lindback said. "(Instant runoff voting) diminishes the power of mainstream voters, and it increases the power of voters for third parties."