The City Council failed to uphold the rights of the St. Paul voters to petition their elected leaders for access to the ballot. Five council members - Melvin Carter, Pat Harris, Russ Stark, Lee Helgen and Kathy Lantry - all said they would not block IRV on the ballot if the petition drive was successful. Russ Stark and Melvin Carter supported IRV during their campaigns in 2007. Stark was the only vote against blocking IRV from our ballot.

The petition more than 7,000 people signed to put IRV on the Saint Paul ballot this year was certified by the Ramsey County Elections Office on June 13, 2008 and legally belongs on the ballot. There are three ways to get a charter Amendment on a city ballot for citizens to vote on. The Charter Commission and the City Council both have the power to do this. Citizens can also organize a petition to place a measure on their ballot. The third path exists to ensure citizens have the right to be heard when neither official body will act.

By removing the IRV question, the City Council has disrupted the fundamental “check and balance” between Saint Paul’s constituency and them, a clear abuse of their power. It violates citizens’ right to access to the ballot. The law clearly creates a method for voters to put a question on the ballot, even when elected officials would prefer otherwise.

The City Attorney does not make the case that IRV is "manifestly" unconstitional. He describes his opinion as his "best guess" and IRV is "more likely than not" unconstitutional. IRV has been upheld as constitutional in other states and has not been proven unconstitutional in Minnesota; a lawsuit on constitutionality is pending in Minneapolis. The council does not have the legal authority to refuse placing IRV on the ballot based on "best guess" claims against the constitutionality of IRV.

Instant runoff voting is constitutional under the one-person/one-vote rule, just like the primary/general system. In the latter system, voters can choose to vote twice by participating in each election if they wish. IRV simply compresses the primary and general elections into one.

The cost of implementing IRV next year will NOT be $1.5 million and will NOT require new machines. President Lantry is quoted in the paper as saying cost of implementation is a key reason she opposes IRV. This is another misleading argument against IRV. The 2009 IRV election will be for only one race - the mayor’s race. First choices can be tallied with existing machines and the runoff - if required - can be counted by hand. Ramsey County has 150 years of experience hand counting ballots, and the process is simple and very inexpensive. The County is scheduled to acquire new machines in 2011, so there will be little additional cost in choosing IRV compatible equipment.

Combining two elections in to one will save the City money. According to the Ramsey County Elections Officer, eliminating the city primary will save $125,000 each election year. With municipal elections held every two years, this savings adds up quickly. Even when School Board primaries are needed, some cost savings will occur.

IRV will reinvigorate democracy in Saint Paul elections by increasing voter participation and choice. Only 5% of registered Saint Paul voters attended the last primary. This means many candidates that represent diverse platforms never have the opportunity to be voted on by the majority of voters. IRV eliminates low-turnout primaries and brings together in a single election the most voters able to choose from all the candidates.

Voters like IRV because it makes their vote more meaningful. There are no more ‘spoiler’ votes, because voters get to choose their true first choice in confidence. It is more convenient for voters because we only have to go to the polls once. In Burlington, Vermont’s 2006 election exit poll study conducted by the University of Vermont, 63% of voters said they liked IRV.