Regarding a charter amendment adopting instant-runoff voting, Jason
Goray wrote, "Heck yeah, I want to resurrect this issue. A few questions: *
How many signatures? * Do we have enough time to get it on this year's
ballot? If so, when's the deadline? If not, does that mean we'd have to wait
another year? * Does it need to be a referendum? If not, why doesn't the
city council just get on the task and pass it? * How do we make it happen?"
[BRM] The charter amendment process is described online on the City
Clerk's website at
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/elections/citizen-petition/index.asp#TopOfPa
ge. The timeline for proposing an amendment appears at
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/elections/citizen-petition/charter_calendar.
asp.
A petition proposing an amendment to the City Charter needs
signatures from a number of registered voters that is at least five percent
of the votes cast in the last statewide general election. That number today
is 8760, but will probably change after the upcoming general election.
The deadline for proposing an amendment in time for the November
general election just passed two weeks ago. As for whether waiting for
another year (or two, since there is no general election scheduled in the
City in 2003) is necessary, the law is ambiguous: the provision governing
amendments (Minnesota Statutes section 410.12, subdivision 4) says that
"amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or
special election and published as in the case of the original charter." The
provision governing the original charter (section 410.10, subdivision 1)
says that "the council or other governing body of the city shall cause the
proposed charter to be submitted at the next general election thereafter
occurring in the city within six months after the delivery of such draft,
and if there is no general city election occurring in the city within six
months after the delivery of such draft, then the council or other governing
body of the city shall cause the proposed charter to be submitted at a
special election to be held within 90 days after the delivery of such
draft." Arguably, therefore, the City Council must call a special election
on a proposed charter amendment within 90 days after the amendment is
formally proposed; but that argument assumes that "as in the case of the
original charter" modifies "submitted" as well as "published." If the phrase
modifies only "published," then arguably the City can wait until the next
general election. (I can just hear my high-school English teachers saying "I
told you so" about watching out for dangling modifiers.) I am working off of
a quick reading through the statute, so maybe someone who is more familiar
with this area can offer a better answer.
The City Council can amend the Charter without a referendum, if (1)
it is acting on a recommendation from the Charter Commission, and (2) the
Council's vote is unanimous. As for "why doesn't the city council just get
on the task and pass it," the process of using the Council in order to
bypass a popular vote is generally used only for noncontroversial changes,
usually of a technical nature. Adopting instant-runoff voting without a
referendum doesn't fit the profile--even if the Council did unanimously
support it, which seems unlikely. No matter how good this idea seems to its
supporters (including me), there are many voters who don't know about or
don't understand instant-runoff voting, and many others who understand it
fine and still don't like it. Such a significant charter amendment deserves
a thoughtful public debate and consensus before becoming law.
BRM
Brian Melendez
St. Anthony West (Ward 3)
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
