Dudum v. Arntz
On February 4, 2010, a group of voters in San Francisco filed a lawsuit in Federal court claiming that one aspect of the city's use of IRV is unconstitutional. The suit argued that limiting the number of candidates the voter is able to rank (so called "restricted IRV") violates constitutional rights. The lead plaintiff was Ron Dudum, who has run for the Board of Supervisors several times, most recently in 2008.
On April 16, 2010, District Court Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that "restricted IRV" is constitutional.
On November 8, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit.
On March 15, 2011, the case was argued and submitted.
On May 20, 2011, an opinion was filed.
Circuit Court documents
District Court documents
- February 5: San Francisco Examiner, "Ranked choice voting system under attack"
- February 8: New America Foundation, "Election experts dismiss San Francisco ranked choice voting lawsuit as baseless"
- February 10: Blair Bobier, "Is big money behind SF lawsuit?"
- March 29: New America Foundation, "New America Foundation files amicus brief in San Francisco Ranked Choice Voting lawsuit"
- March 30: SF Weekley, "Think tank rips former supe candidate's Ranked-Choice Voting lawsuit"
- April 1: Blair Bobier, "Federal judge likely to reject IRV challenge"
- April 1: Bay City News, "Court hears challenge to SF's ranked choice voting system"
- April 2: San Francisco Chronicle, "Voting system appears safe for now"
- April 17: Ballot Access News, "U.S. District Court upholds San Francisco?s version of instant runoff voting"
- April 17: Blair Bobier, "Landmark Federal case upholds instant runoff voting"
- April 19: New America Foundation, "Landmark Federal case upholds ranked choice voting"
- April 20: San Francisco Chronicle, "S.F. instant-runoff voting upheld"
- 2003 Secretary of State hearing
- Other background