Support grows for Minneapolis to rethink the way it draws election districts

Author: STEVE BRANDT; STAFF WRITER

Momentum is building at Minneapolis City Hall for devising a fairer process for drawing the ward and other election boundaries that govern for whom voters may vote.

The effort is being led by Cam Gordon, new chair of the City Council's Election Committee, supported by Elizabeth Glidden, that panel's chair for the last four years.

They've asked the Charter Commission to devise a fairer, more transparent process for drawing election lines that could be presented to voters as a charter amendment next fall. The commission agreed last week to establish a subgroup to work on a timeline for doing so. The next redistricting happens in 2012.

"I strongly believe this process could be improved," Gordon told the commission.

Some of the momentum for changing how political lines are drawn comes from a legal challenge by Green Party candidates and others to the boundaries drawn in 2002 by the city's last redistricting commission. That lawsuit alleged that the redistricting group lacked enough minority group or Green members to be representative, and that it treated minority voters unfairly.

A federal judge found the 2002 plan met legal standards. Nevertheless, Charter Commission member Andrea Rubenstein said, the lawsuit raised issues that deserve examination.

Gordon was a Green Party official and plaintiff in the legal challenge. Greens felt particularly aggrieved by the last redistricting because it put both of the party's council incumbents into wards where they were forced to run against DFL incumbents. Both lost.

The charter defines the makeup of the redistricting commission. One member is picked by the council's majority party , another by the rest of the council members, which currently would be Gordon, the council's only non-DFLer. The Charter Commission names two members from each political party that got 5 percent of the vote in the last statewide election -- DFL, Republican and Independence in the 2002 redistricting -- and two more from a minority party or unaffiliated candidates.

Despite the fact that Greens had elected two of 13 council members in 2002 and no party besides the DFL elected any others, Greens got only one redistricting seat to two each for Republican and Independence representatives.

Charter Commissioner Todd Ferrara, who served on the last redistricting panel, called the mapping process contentious and political.

Although some other cities allow their councils to draw political boundaries, there seems to be consensus at City Hall against that approach. St. Paul charges its charter commission with drawing city election lines. Charter commissions in both cities are appointed by the chief judges of their respective district courts.

Glidden said a better solution might not emerge for Minneapolis, but that the amount of criticism of the last process warrants a review. Mayoral policy director Peter Wagenius said that although the mayor plays no formal role in redistricting, "I think it's safe to say there's got to be a better way to go about it."

The drawing of political lines takes on more importance now because the school board will be partially elected from districts starting with this fall's elections. Its initial districts will follow the six Park Board districts, which also are up for revision next year after this year's federal census.

Copyright 2010 Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities

Governor Pawlenty Eliminates PCR Program

One of my favorite Monty Python skits is the infamous encounter between King Arthur and the Black Knight. What makes the scene so funny is that after first losing one arm – and then a second – the Black Knight keeps on fighting as though nothing has changed. I was reminded of this scene yesterday after Governor Pawlenty disclosed he was eliminating the Political Contribution Refund program effective July 1, 2009.

On principle, the Independence Party of Minnesota has always agreed to fight its Republican and DFL opponents with one arm tied behind its back because of our refusal to accept and be influenced by special interest and lobbyist money. Now the Governor is slicing off our other arm by eliminating the PCR program which rebates political contributions dollar-for-dollar up to $50 for individuals ($100 per couple).

Like the noble Black Knight, the Independence Party will proceed on its noble quest. As the only political party truly dedicated to fiscal responsibility, I am of the opinion that during these difficult economics it is only fair that political parties and candidates share in the burden of balancing the state budget. As such, I have no qualms with Pawlenty’s decision.

What this means, however, is that all of us must rise to the occasion and embrace the IP’s other time-honored principle of personal responsibility. In other words, we must now fund the party and its candidates before the benefit of this program is eliminated.

The fact that the Republican governor and the DFL-controlled legislature couldn’t come up with a budget-balancing agreement this past session tells us that the common-sense wisdom of the Independence Party is needed in Minnesota now more than ever.

If you feel the same way and believe in the party and its bedrock principles, help the party by making a contribution today! Don’t delay! Go to www.independenceminnesota.org and click on the Contribute link at the top of the page. Or mail your contribution today to Independence Party of Minnesota - PO Box 40495 - St. Paul, MN 55114. You will receive your PCR application and rebate receipt in the mail as soon as we receive your contribution. Hurry - you have until June 30, 2009 before the PCR program is elimininated!

Jack Uldrich

Chair

P.S. If you prefer to fight with at least one hand, make your contribution today at www.independenceminnesota.org – while you can still qualify for the rebate!

Prepared and Paid for by the Independence Party of MN
Your contribution is not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Barkley on Bailout: 'Key Questions Remain Unanswered'

Pre-Election Rush to 'Solutions' Reminiscent of 2002 Iraq War Debate

For Immediate Release
Contact: Christopher Truscott
612.423.2582
ctruscott@senatorbarkley.com

SAINT PAUL—Dean Barkley, the Independence Party candidate for U.S. Senate, outlined his concerns about the proposed Wall Street bailout with eight key questions at a press conference Friday morning at the State Capitol:

We should not take at face value that a meltdown of our financial market is imminent. What specific events can be cited that foretell these doomsday prophecies? Specifically, where is credit being withheld and where is there inadequate liquidity in the markets?

What percentage of the financial market is involved in this problem? The banking sector seems to be just fine. Bank America and Wells Fargo are still making loans. Can't the Federal Reserve pick up the slack to provide the capital necessary to replace this source of funds?

Who decided that the sky will fall if a decision is not made by Monday? What was the basis of this prediction? What is happening in the market now that would prove this immediate danger?

Where did the $700 billion figure come from?

Isn't the doom-and-gloom rhetoric coming from the Bush administration creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Why do we need a rush to judgment on this issue?

What specific reforms in leverage requirements, contingent liability disclosure, and regulatory oversight will be implemented to ensure this situation does not resurface.

How will adding $700 billion more to the national debt affect the exchange rate and the price of oil?

Once this precedent is set, who will be next in line? The auto industry? Airlines? Auto loans? Hedge funds?


"In the rush to find 'solutions,' too many key questions remain unanswered," Barkley said. "I'm not ideologically opposed to a bailout at some point, if necessary, but the way in which the Administration and Congress is handling this is reminiscent of the pre-election Iraq War debate six years ago. The American people deserve better than that this time around."

Earlier this week, Barkley called for responsible business leaders and non-partisan politicians, like former Medtronic CEO Bill George and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to be included in the search for answers to the problems affecting certain sectors of the economy.

On Thursday, he said Congress should delay action on the bailout proposal.

"Everyone is worried about the economy, including me," Barkley said this week. "But the worst thing Congress can do right now is rush through a massive bail-out bill before adjourning in just a few days. More than 100 leading economists agree: Let's take a while to breathe, talk to voters over the next month and get a better handle on how the economic indicators are shaking out before we hand over hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street titans."
* * * * *

Barkley, 58, served as the director of the Minnesota Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning under Gov. Jesse Ventura. In November 2002, Ventura appointed Barkley to fill the final two months of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's term.

The former governor said recently that Barkley is "measured minute by minute … the most effective U.S. senator in Minnesota history."

Fairvote joins IRV Lawsuit

FairVote Minnesota to Intervene in Lawsuit against Instant Runoff Voting

Minneapolis, MN (July 31, 2008) - Today, FairVote Minnesota, the organizational anchor of the Saint Paul Better Ballot Campaign, announced that it will seek to intervene as a defendant in an on-going lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of instant runoff voting (IRV). In 2006, Minneapolis voters and its City Council authorized the use of IRV in city elections, with implementation planned for 2009. The lawsuit that FairVote Minnesota seeks to join opposes IRV in Minneapolis and was brought by a small group of activists who support the return of partisan local elections.

"Joining this lawsuit as a co-defendant is the most logical and efficient manner for us to resolve the constitutional question," said FairVote Minnesota Board member and Saint Paul IRV Campaign Coordinator, Ellen Brown. "We will help dismantle the St. Paul City Council's cover for blocking this important reform."

Both the plaintiffs and the City of Minneapolis have indicated that they will support the intervention request.

"Intervention is the right of a third party when it feels it can be of assistance to the court in arriving at a just decision," said former Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi attorney and FairVote Minnesota board chair, Tyrone Bujold. "Our plea will be to expedite the case so a decision can be reached as soon as possible."

On July 2, the St. Paul City Council blocked a certified petition submitted by more than 7,000 voters. The petition would have placed a charter amendment on the ballot this November to authorize use of IRV in future municipal elections. The block was justified in the eyes of the Council leadership based on a city attorney opinion that raised questions of constitutionality. After blocking the initiative, the Council voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot once the constitutionality of IRV is resolved in the Minneapolis case.

The St. Paul Campaign does not believe the Council may legally block petition initiatives except in cases of "manifest unconstitutionality." "The Council, with the exception of Ward 6 member Russ Stark, had chosen to interpret the muddled attorney opinion as providing legal cover for their action. In doing so, the St. Paul Campaign believes that the Council has overstepped its legal authority," said Brown. The St. Paul Campaign considered suing the City to force a court interpretation of "manifest unconstitutionality" but decided this route was not likely to produce a decision in time to allow for sufficient voter education before the 2008 election, and might not have resulted in a definitive conclusion to the matter.

James Dorsey of the Fredrikson & Byron law firm and Keith Halleland of the Halleland, Lewis, Nilan and Johnson law firm will serve as lead co-counsel in the matter. Assistance will be provided by Jay Benanav, Alan Weinblatt, Weinblatt and Gaylord; Steve Kelley, Humphrey Institute Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy; David Schultz, Hamline University; Tyrone Bujold, FairVote MN chair; Aaron Street, Center for Law and Politics; Gena
Berglund, National Lawyers Guild; Cecily Hines, retired attorney; Andrea Rubenstein, attorney at law; and Teresa Ayling, Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen P.A.; and Jane Prince, attorney at law.


FairVote Minnesota
PO Box 19440
Minneapolis, MN 55419-0440
info@FairVoteMN.org
(763) 807-2550

Run Jesse Run!

by Rich Broderick

The barely disguised antipathy Minnesota’s corporate news media displayed toward Jesse Ventura during the 1998 election and his subsequent time as governor always had more to do with snobbery and social class than policies or politics.

The shock over his election was rooted in embarrassment at what “they,” meaning the rest of the country (which doesn’t think about us at all), would think of Minnesota for having voted in a man who speaks with a Midwestern equivalent of a “youse guys” Brooklyn accent. It was the kind of vapors my lace-curtain Irish grandma used to succumb to whenever her grandkids behaved in ways that were not “respectable.” What will the neighbors think?!!

Even though Ventura appointed perfectly respectable – and highly competent – commissioners (he never once saddled us with hapless ideologues like Carol Molnau or Cheryl Yecke), his governorship was not a successful one. It fell victim both to his impatience with the often-tedious process of political bargaining and to the determination of the DFL and the GOP (one of the ringleaders: Tim Pawlenty) to sabotage him – and thus the Independence Party – the consequences of which narrow bi-partisanship have left Minnesota reeling financially ever since.

Still, it’s good to have Jesse back in action, hawking his new book and, even more intriguingly, bruiting the possibility of another run for office, this time for the U.S. Senate.

Anyone who caught Jesse’s bravura performance last week on MPR’s mid-day program got a refresher course in what a breath of fresh air the man is in today’s consultant-driven political environment. Not only is he bright and articulate, he also has an extraordinary ability to frame supposedly complex issues in ways that are not only simple to understand but also illuminate otherwise overlooked dimensions of critical importance. My favorite moment during the show was his comment about the proposed 600-mile fence along the U.S. Mexico border. People should remember, he observed, that fences not only keep people out, they can also keep people in – a pithy allusion to the authoritarian streak behind “Homeland Security.”

I don’t know if Ventura could win a Senate seat this year. Conditions are not the same as they were in ’98, and he would face a wave of press hostility that would make his previous tangles with the “media jackals” pale by comparison. But it sure would be fun to hear him debate Norm Coleman, desperately trying to distance himself from the Bush Administration, and Al Franken, the soi-disant wit who is not only witless when it comes to public policy but a major-league carpetbagger as well – the real issue exposed by his recent tax problems. In any public forum matching a clone and a clown like these two, Ventura would shine.

Norm Coleman and Al Franken running for Senate? Now that’s embarrassing

Source

Ranked Choice Voting at Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Election

Senate Subcommittee on Elections
AGENDA - Ranked Choice Voting
20 November 2007

Senator Dan Larson - Committee Chair

1) Jeanne Massey - FairVote Minnesota

Intro to Ranked Choice Voting by FairVote Minnesota via powerpoint

Senator Chris Gerlach R-Apple Valley - [ Clearly upset, angry about this issue. Wanting to throw a temper tantrum? ]

When he asks for a logical conclusion in an election of 100%, Is he calling for consensus elections? Could we have a blocking concern against a candidate and block the outcome of an election as a single voter? Elections would never have a conclusion in Gerlach's assumption of election consensus. [ Photo is of Gerlach making this leap of logic at consensus voting ]

"Abraham Lincoln elected by a majority"
Partisan primaries and general joined together? Gerlach has not done his homework on IRV when he asked this ridiculous question. He was only given the talking points against Ranked Choice Voting.

2)

John Gilbert - Wake Co. N.C. Board of Elections 2007 -

Carie - 112,000 suburb of Raleigh - saved $28,000 in election costs

Hendersonville 12,000 in Western part of county -

No split votes, neither were partisan. Objectives of county election judges
1) Election conducted with integrity
2)Do all they can within limited authority to facilitate voting by all citizens

2004 Wake County outvoted many other counties, including Charlotte, N.C.
Don't count votes people are not entitled to vote for.
Designing voting laws is not rocket science. This brings us as close as possible to a fair government. Election proved that IRV is as easy as 1,2,3. Rankings only affected one race, an at-large race.

Opponents insist on it being complicated, but people are used to making choices. Exit polls confirmed that voters liked it and had no problems with it. It was the same regardless of ethnicity, income, where they lived, age, or any other criteria.

Gerlach "agrees it simple at the front end. Behind the scenes the choices are manipulated through math and formulations. How many understand how it works?"

Gilbert - "About as many as can explain how are President is elected. The powerpoint makes it look complicated, but it really isn't. There are different ways of tabulating. What we did in Carie was simply voting by hand, though computer programming exists. What people often don't understand, is that their second choice can never be the enemy of their first choice, it brings you closest to majority rule."

Gerlach - "Far more people understand how electoral votes work. Clearly IRV creates a gymnastics of confusion. It is far more complicated than you make it appear."

Gilbert - "IRV is not a left or right issue, is not a Democrat or Republican issue. If you believe that Democracy is that over half the people are right most the time, this brings you the closest to this. "

3)

Betsy Hodges - City Council - Minneapolis

Voted as a council to put Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot. 65% of the voters approved in 2006. Many events to inform public, citizens very enthusiastic of RCV after they understood it.

Cyndy Reichert - Director of Elections - Minneapolis

Studied election law extensively and released a report. ( http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/irvoting.pdf )

Working towards a 2009 elections, and may delay until 2013 to replace equipment with Rank Choice compatible

4) Beth Fraser - Secretary of State's Office

Excited about the process. A statewide issue, other cities are examining this method such as Red Wing and Hopkins.

5) Joe Mansky - Elections Manager for Ramsey County

No position for or against RCV. All voting equipment certified by Secretary of State prior to RCV proposed, currently a "Winner takes all" system. Two voter equipment vendors are working to create equipment that will meet Federal voting standards. We will not use a different or new voting system for a statewide election system.

Cities do not have authority on their own to change their voting system. Cannot be recommended that two different forms of voting occur in the same election. Believes this situation should be prevented. One quarter of Saint Paul's electorate speak another primary language.

Our voting equipment can do a 1st round voting system. We cannot reallocate votes in subsequent rounds. A counting center could do this manually or with different voting equipment. Current equipment allow instant results on our websites in 2008 and 2012.

Replacing the voting equipment, and currently cities and county work together. This becomes a cost issue for both cities and counties. The year 2011 would be the time when most voting equipment in the state would be in need of replacement.

Our election law does not accommodate for RCV.
-maximum round limit for runoff voting
- maximum votes one can cast, permitted to rank all candidates
- procedures for counting
-rules how we can tell voter intent
-how would we conduct a recount

According to the Attorney General, RCV may be unconstitutional in general elections. It does appear as though there may be no constitutional issue with primaries, and RCV could be restricted to these elections. It could also be used in a presidential primary.

Manufacturers understand more demand for RCV and other voting methods. Vendors will not put effort into something they cannot make money on. New generation of voting equipment is needed, but a law is needed to assist us in buying them. Hand-counting is the least accurate form of vote counting in Minnesota.

6) Andy Cilek - Minnesota Voters Alliance ( MNVoters.org )

[ Also seems angry ]

We oppose IRV and RCV - Barbara Johnson [ A corporate-owned DFLer - could easily join the GOP along with Paul Ostrow and Chris Stewart - as Norm Coleman has ] also opposes this.

In Raleigh, they felt it disenfranchised many voters.

Plan to file a legal case against IRV in Minneapolis on December 4th, 2007.

Cannot cast a single choice more than once.

Fatal flaw, voters don't know whether they are helping or hurting their cause.

Senator Sandy Pappas - DFL - Saint Paul - Confused about IRV and normal runoffs.

Andy Cilek also wanted Pappas reprimanded for speaking out of turn.

Gerlach believes votes are not counted fairly. Majority 1st choice voters get a less fair chance.

Gerlach - What value is there a vote in a vote not counted?

Pappas - 3rd Party voters are told their votes are pointless

Gerlach - A vote for Hatch was the same weight per voter as Pawlenty. IRV is a weighted system.

Pappas - Minnesota does not have a runoff election. Only if you have 2 candidates would you have an election where voters can create a majority winning candidate.

7) Fran Hesch - Hopkins - Charter Commission

Volunteer on the Ranked Choice Voting committee

25 page alternative voting taskforce. 6 different voting options were recommended for Hopkins. Supporst alternative voting method choice. Document Hopkins concerns for STV in smaller cities.

1917-1959 Used STV. Hopkins encouraged state of Minnesota to purchase voting equipment that would be STV compatible. IRV is different than STV in multiple seats. IRV could be used for mayor and special elections only,per Hopkins city charter. STV could be used in Hopkins for multiple seats.

Please don't legislate for plurality or STV methods. Minneapolis is the urgent issue and legislation is needed. Any language should not impact a choice of voting methods.

8) Senator John C. Hottinger - Saint Paul

Also volunteering to assist IRV implementation. FairVoteMN.org

2nd Round of counting, you DO count both votes twice. You don't have to come back to the polls again. Voter support for a victor with a majority of the vote. IRV alleviates the concerns of voters. Peter Hutchinson couldn't be voted for because he was outside the two parties, yet he should have been an option instead of seen as a "spoiler."

There will always be discontent over elections. Those who win with less than majority serve as if they were mandated by the voters. 2% of voters turnout for primaries. 2 elections instead of one hurts Democracy.

Minnesotans are frustrated in the way political parties choose their primary candidates.

Pappas - Constitutionality of IRV.

Hottinger - David Schultz from Hamline goes through the Constitutionality of IRV. All votes are counted again during the second round.

Pappas - This is a Minnesota Constitutional issue, not a Federal. How does this voting system work here?

Hottinger - Unsure of how RCV applies to Minnesota Constitution

Link to video podcast:

Real Media Format
http://stream1.video.state.mn.us:8080/ramgen/Senatevideo/cmte_stgovelections_112007.rm

Windows Media Format
mms://stream1.video.state.mn.us:8080/Senatevideo/cmte_stgovelections_112007.wmv

[ All of my comments in parantheses. These are notes and highly paraphrased. But the primary ideas of each individual are expressed ]

The Decline of the Independence Party

The Independence Party of Minnesota has experienced a noticeable decline in support across Minnesota - as evidenced in its performance last month. This decline is revealed across a number of dimensions and offices, including a decreased ability to field candidates in state legislative races since 2000 (the year it disassociated itself from the national Reform Party).

Support for IP candidates in statewide races declined in 4 of 5 offices from 2002 to 2006: Governor (declining 16.2 to 6.4 percent), Secretary of State (4.5 to 3.0 percent), Attorney General (4.4 to 4.1 percent), and State Auditor (4.8 to 4.6 percent). The Independence Party candidate for US Senator did increase from 2.0 to 3.2 percent, although this was lower than the 5.8 percent the IP received for that race in 2000).

In State House races the number of Independence Party candidates has dropped from 27 in 2000, to 26 in 2002, to 20 in 2004, to just 9 in 2006. These candidates also received the lowest level of support per district in which they ran in 2006 (5.7%), down from 7.4% in 2004, 10.3% in 2002, and 9.9% in 2000.

In the State Senate only 7 Independence Party candidates were on the ballot in 2006 averaging 6.9 percent of the vote per district, less than twice the number of candidates in 2002 (16), in which candidates averaged 12.4 percent of the vote per district.

One bright spot for the Independence Party was its performance in US House races. The IP fielded 3 candidates,
equaling the number on the ballots in 2004 and 2000. Tammy Lee (MN-5) recorded the highest level of voter support for the Party in a US House this decade (21.0 percent).

The Independence Party will retain its major party status in 2008, thanks to Peter Hutchinson's performance in the race for governor, but the party is facing an increased difficulty in distinguishing itself from the DFL, who appears to be drawing support away from IP candidates.

source: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/oster017/smartpolitics/2006/12/the_decline_of_the_independenc.html

Jack Uldrich: Blame Hatch for his own defeat

There's no reason to think Peter Hutchinson's presence in the governor's race was a factor.

Famed Wall Street investor Warren Buffett once said that the problem with conventional wisdom is that too often it is long on convention and short on wisdom. I was reminded of this recently because in the aftermath of the election it has become conventional wisdom among the politicos, pundits and DFLers especially that Peter Hutchinson "cost" Mike Hatch the gubernatorial election.

This is wrong.

In a democracy, a person is free to vote for whomever he or she believes is the best person. To suggest people should willfully vote for a candidate whom they believe is inferior is the antithesis of democracy. The solution for DFLers is not to blame Hutchinson; it is to endorse better candidates.

There is a solution to this problem, and it is called instant runoff voting. Unfortunately, the DFL Party has never embraced it. This is in spite of the fact that many of the same people now blaming Hutchinson for Hatch's defeat still blame Tim Penny for Roger Moe's loss in 2002.

The DFL had four years to forge a solution. It did not. To be fair, it is entirely possible that such legislation would have been blocked by the Republicans or vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But that does not excuse the DFL for refusing to either embrace the idea in its party platform or introduce a bill in the Legislature.

This continued indifference to a solution suggests the DFL remains impervious to the notion that many Minnesotans want more political options -- not a continuation of the status quo.

There are three reasons why the conventional wisdom about Hatch's defeat is wrong. First, according to the Star Tribune's own exit polling, 43 percent of self-proclaimed independents voted for Tim Pawlenty, and 43 percent voted for Hatch. This suggests that independents -- who were the people Hutchinson most appealed to -- were equally inclined to vote Republican as DFL. Therefore, a strong argument could be made that Hatch's defeat would have been no worse without Hutchinson in the race.

Many of Hutchinson's most visible and prominent supporters were Republicans, including former Lt. Gov. Joanell Dyrstad; former House Speaker Rod Searle, and scores of other prominent business leaders.

Second, and again using the Star Tribune's own polling, Peter Hutchinson's support in the polls from the time of the State Fair through Election Day remained consistent at about 7 percent. This implies that any last-minute erosion of Hatch's support did not go to Hutchinson, but straight to Pawlenty.

This leads to the third and most important point: It was not Hutchinson who "cost" Hatch the election, but Hatch.

Without Judi Dutcher's E85 gaffe and his own overblown response, it could very well have been Pawlenty complaining that Hutchinson cost him the election.

Of course, he, too, would have been misguided because a person's vote belongs to no one but the person for whom the vote was cast. But I guess that's the beauty of conventional wisdom. It doesn't have to submit itself to the facts.

Jack Uldrich is the former chair of the Independence Party of Minnesota.