The Star Tribune article by Rochelle Olson misses the whole point.  In answer to the reporter's question, we simply stated that our polling showed voters didn't "fully" understand IRV (as very, very few could actually explain it). She focused on that small point and left out the important constitutional issues.

Our focus is on "upholding the right of the citizen to cast a vote for the candidate of his/her choice UNIMPAIRED by the second and additional choice votes cast by others" as the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled.

Even if people fully understood IRV, or any other preferential voting scheme, and voted for it, they still don't have the right to violate the franchise rights of others.