Lexplug logoLexplug

Dudum v. Arntz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
640 F.3d 1098 (2011)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state or local government's use of a restricted instant-runoff voting (IRV) system, which limits the number of candidates a voter can rank, does not unconstitutionally burden the right to vote if the minimal burdens it imposes are justified by important regulatory interests, such as administrative efficiency, cost savings, and avoiding voter confusion.


Facts:

  • In March 2002, San Francisco voters passed Proposition A, amending the City Charter to replace the traditional two-round runoff election system with an instant runoff voting (IRV) system for certain municipal offices.
  • The IRV system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters' next choices until one candidate has a majority of the remaining votes.
  • The City Charter permits the Director of Elections to limit the number of rankings to no fewer than three if the voting equipment cannot 'feasibly accommodate' unlimited rankings.
  • Citing technical limitations, cost, and potential voter confusion, the Department of Elections has limited the number of rankable candidates to three in all IRV elections held since the system's adoption.
  • In some elections conducted under this 'restricted IRV' system, a significant percentage of ballots became 'exhausted' because all three of a voter's ranked candidates were eliminated during the tabulation process.
  • In at least one instance, the number of 'exhausted' ballots exceeded the margin of victory in the election.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dudum, a group of San Francisco voters, filed suit in the United States District Court against the City of San Francisco and its election officials.
  • The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the restricted IRV system violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  • The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of San Francisco on all claims.
  • Dudum appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does San Francisco's use of a restricted instant-runoff voting (IRV) system, which limits voters to ranking only three candidates and 'exhausts' ballots whose ranked candidates are all eliminated, unconstitutionally burden the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?


Opinions:

Majority - Berzon, Circuit Judge

No. San Francisco's use of a restricted instant-runoff voting (IRV) system does not unconstitutionally burden the right to vote because any burdens it imposes are minimal at best and are justified by the City's important regulatory interests. Applying the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, the court found the alleged burdens on voters to be 'largely ephemeral.' The court rejected the argument that 'exhausted' ballots are equivalent to disenfranchisement, clarifying that IRV is a single election with a unique tabulation algorithm, not a series of separate runoff elections. The court also dismissed the claim that some votes are not counted, explaining this is a matter of 'semantics, not substance,' as exhausted ballots are functionally equivalent to votes cast for losing candidates in any other system. Finally, it rejected the vote dilution argument, stating that ranking preferences sequentially is not the same as casting multiple or weighted votes. Because the burdens were minimal, the City's important regulatory interests—such as saving millions by avoiding separate runoff elections, preventing voter confusion from overly complex ballots, and working within the limits of existing voting technology—were more than sufficient to justify the system.



Analysis:

This decision provides significant legal validation for ranked-choice voting systems, which were a relatively novel electoral reform in the United States at the time. It establishes that such systems, even with limitations like a cap on rankings, can withstand constitutional scrutiny under the flexible Anderson-Burdick framework. The ruling gives deference to local governments in structuring their elections, affirming their ability to balance voter rights with practical concerns like cost, administrative feasibility, and clarity. By systematically dismantling arguments based on disenfranchisement and vote dilution, the court provided a clear analytical path for lower courts to follow when evaluating challenges to other non-traditional voting systems.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dudum v. Arntz (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"