From the May 2010 Newsletter:

Federal court judge upholds Ranked-Choice Voting's constitutionality
By Gideon Kramer, SPOSFI News Editor

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) was approved by San Francisco voters in 2002 and put into effect in 2004. RCV is intended to avoid the cost and risk of low voter turnout associated with holding a separate runoff election at a later date in cases where no candidate in a particular race wins a majority.

Under the system, voters can rank three choices in each race. If no candidate in a race wins a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his or her votes are transferred to the second choices of each resident who voted for that candidate. The process continues until one candidate achieves a majority. In February, six citizens, led by former District 4 supervisorial candidate Ron Dudum, sued the city, claiming that ranked-choice voting is unconstitutional because some voters are denied having their vote counted in later rounds of ballot counting. They claimed the system violates their constitutional right to vote because voters whose candidates are eliminated in early rounds have no voice in the final rounds of ballot counting. The city contended that the system is indeed constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court doctrines because it doesn’t prohibit people from voting and doesn’t discriminate. The city also maintains that it would not be feasible to provide voting machines that can process more than three choices.

On Friday, April 19, Judge Richard Seeborg, a recent appointee to the Federal bench, denied a preliminary injunction of the RCV system’s application in the upcoming Board of Supervisor races. This is the first time a federal court has weighed in on RCV. Previously, the supreme courts of Massachusetts and Minnesota ruled in favor of RCV’s constitutionality. Judge Seeborg quoted approvingly from their decisions, calling them “thoroughly reasoned analyses.”

“It would be very difficult for a new judge to overturn a voter-approved voting system,” said lead plaintiff Ron Dudum. “We are reviewing the decision and look forward to appealing it to the next level.” We have concentrated this month on the upcoming June elections. While many voters won’t bother to exercise their right to vote in this election, or perhaps will only consider state offices important, this ballot includes items that will affect our lives as property owners for years to come.

Like what you're reading?

Join SPOSFI now to receive our complete newsletter each month, as well as access to our on-line newsletter archive located in our Member Area.