User:Peterpkim/sandbox

Involvement in Court Cases
FairVote has participated in a number of recent court cases as amici curiae to advance fair representation voting, particularly under the California and federal Voting Rights Act. Notable recent cases they have been involved include:

===Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007) === Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007) dealt with the constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA). After the California Superior Court of Stanislaus County declared the CVRA unconstitutional, plaintiffs Enrique Sanchez, Emma Pinedo and Salvador Vera appealed to the Fifth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of California. Along with Kathay Feng from the organization California Common Cause, Fairvote submitted an amici curiae brief in favor of the plaintiffs. Fairvote argued that winner-take-all at-large voting systems caused "vote dilutions in jurisdictions affected by racially polarized voting, even where minority voters cannot form a majority in a single member district." Supporting the CVRA, Fairvote viewed the law requiring courts to "fashion effective remedies to cure vote dilution affecting smaller and dispersed minority populations." Asserting that the CVRA allows California to become more representative of the people, Fairvote concluded that the CVRA was an important and constitutional piece of government reform. The Court of Appeal applied rational basis to CVRA and declared the law constitutional, reversing the lower court's decision.

===United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008) ===

In December 2006, the Department of Justice alleged that Port Chester's at-large system of electing its board of trustees violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The US government claimed that the at-large electoral system denied the Hispanic population "an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." In United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008), US District Judge Stephen Robinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision that the Village's election system violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered remedial plans from all parties. The Defendants of the case, the Village of Port Chester, proposed cumulative voting as a remedy, which "allows citizens to cast multiple votes for a given candidate for a given seat." In 2007, the Brennan Center, representing FairVote as amicus curiae, submitted a brief supporting cumulative voting as a remedy, but also proposing another system known as "choice voting", a process of ranking candidates. FairVote argued that "cumulative and choice voting avoid the necessity for deliberately drawing districts along racial lines" and that a winner-take-all system would not allow the Hispanic minority population to gain representation. FairVote also argued that cumulative voting is appropriate under the Voting Rights Act, as it "ensures the equal principle of "one-person, one vote"", is race-neutral, and that it is supported by case law and history. On November 6, 2009, the Court did not accept choice voting but accepted Port Chester's remedy of cumulative voting. On June 16, 2010, Port Chester elected its first Latino to the Board of Trustees.

===Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis (2009) ===

Fairvote Minnesota is a cousin and ally of Fairvote. Fairvote Minnesota, siding with the City of Minneapolis, served as intervenor-respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, a case that was attested at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis dealt with the constitutionality of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which was adopted by the City of Minneapolis for its municipal elections. Minnesota Voters Alliance, a non-profit organization who served as the appellants, argued that the "IRV method violates their right to vote, to associate for political purposes, and to equal protection under both the United States and the Minnesota Constitutions". Siding with the city, FairVote Minnesota stated that IRV is a form of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) that allowed voters to rank multiple candidates on a single ballot. They argued that this form of voting had legitimate policy reasons such as simplifying the election process, saving money, increasing voter turn-out, ensuring more diverse representation, and promoting civil election campaigns. In their defense of the City of Minneapolis, FairVote argued that the appellants bore a ""heavy burden of persuasion" because they brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of IRV" and that "Minneapolis IRV is constitutional because it is supported by legitimate interests, imposes no burden on the right to vote, and applies to all voters". The Court affirmed the lower district court's ruling that IRV did not infringe on the appellants' constitutional rights, thus rejecting the Minnesota Voters Alliance's challenge to IRV. After the result, Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, applauded the Minnesota Supreme Court decision and stated that the Court "blazed a path that every community in our state can follow toward better elections and a stronger democracy" and that the decision was "a resounding endorsement of ranked choice voting".

===Jauregi v. City of Palmdale (2014) ===

Juan Jauregui, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in April 2012 alleging that Palmdale's at-large method of electing members to its City Council resulted in vote dilution for Latino and African American residents. The lawsuit claimed that Palmdale's at-large method denied minority residents effective political participation and thus violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The case was brought up to Judge Mooney of the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles. In July 2013, Judge Mooney declared that the CVRA vested the court in implementing appropriate remedies in favor of the plaintiffs. The City of Palmdale immediately appealed the decision, reasoning that in 2001 Palmdale residents voted for an at-large election system. The case reached the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District. On January 2014, FairVote submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs. FairVote argued that fair representation voting, unlike at-large systems, enhanced minority groups to elect at least one candidate of their choice. FairVote argued that fair representation voting, unlike at-large systems, enhanced minority groups to elect at least one candidate of their choice. FairVote advocated for a number of alternative methods, such as ranked choice voting, single voting, and cumulative voting. However, the City of Palmdale opposed FairVote's participation, arguing that the amicus brief "threatens significant prejudice to the City" as it would continue to delay the certification of the City's November 2013 election. The California Court of Appeal has denied FairVote's application to file as amicus curiae.