FairVote

Last updated
FairVote
FormationJune 1992;32 years ago (1992-06) (as Citizens for Proportional Representation)
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.
Type 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
PurposePromoting electoral reform in the United States
Headquarters Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.
Coordinates 38°59′39″N77°01′38″W / 38.9942°N 77.0272°W / 38.9942; -77.0272
Founder
 Robert Richie [1]
Revenue
$4.3 million (2019) [2]
Staff
32 [2]
Website fairvote.org
Formerly called
The Center for Voting and Democracy, Citizens for Proportional Representation

FairVote is a 501(c)(3) organization and lobbying group in the United States. [3] It was founded in 1992 as Citizens for Proportional Representation to support the implementation of proportional representation in American elections. Its focus changed over time to emphasize instant-runoff voting (IRV), a national popular vote, and universal voter registration. [4] [5] It changed its name to the Center for Voting and Democracy in 1993 and to FairVote in 2004.

Contents

About

Founding

FairVote was founded as Citizens for Proportional Representation (CPR) in 1992 in Cincinnati, Ohio, as the result of a merger of several smaller groups promoting proportional representation into a single, national advocacy group. Early leaders included Robert Richie as executive director, Matthew Cossolotto as president, and Steven Hill as western regional director. John Anderson was head of its national advisory board and in 1992 published a New York Times commentary advocating for IRV in presidential elections. [6]

Board of Directors, 2023 [7] [ needs update ]
Dr. Danielle Allen, Chair
Donald Marron, Vice Chair
Mark de la Iglesia, Secretary
Dr. Purnima Chawla
Tim Hayes
David Wilner
Jake Sandler
Chi Kim

History and timeline

Logo used from 2016 to 2022 FairVote logo 2016.png
Logo used from 2016 to 2022

FairVote is headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Ideology

In his New York Times profile of FairVote co-founder Steven Hill, Scott James called FairVote a "left-wing group". [21] Other writers have claimed that many FairVote policies, such as IRV, are popular in "liberal enclaves" [22] and supported by "populist groups" such as Common Cause, an advocacy organization, [23] and thus give the group a liberal tilt. [24] Louis Jacobson, a writer for Roll Call , argued that any group supporting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be perceived as liberal-leaning because of Democratic frustration with the Electoral College after the 2000 US presidential election. [25]

FairVote co-founder Rob Richie claimed the group "is definitely not a Democratic stalking horse", [26] arguing that the former head of their national advisory board had been a Republican in the 1970s (prior to his 1980 run as an independent and his later support for Ralph Nader's campaign). [27]

Proposed reforms

Ranked choice voting

FairVote advocates for the use of ranked choice voting (IRV) in American elections. Specifically, it advocates for the instant-runoff form of RCV in single-winner elections and the single transferable vote for multi-winner elections. [28] Under all forms of IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, in contrast to the more widely used plurality voting system. FairVote supports the Fair Representation Act, which would enact a single transferable vote system for U.S. House elections and an instant runoff voting system for U.S. Senate elections. [29]

In 2002, FairVote backed a San Francisco ballot initiative amending Section 13.102 of the city charter to allow IRV in local elections. [30] [31] [32] The city began using IRV to elect local officials on November 2, 2004. [30] Subsequent ballot initiatives supported by FairVote have allowed the use of IRV in cities including Minneapolis, [33] [34] Oakland, [35] Portland, [36] Seattle, [37] New York City, [38] and Santa Fe. [39]

FairVote has advocated for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, [40] an agreement among states and the District of Columbia to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest popular vote total in all 50 states and D.C. [41] New York Assemblyman Fred Thiele said he first proposed New York's entrance into the compact after FairVote approached him. [42]

Voting rights

FairVote has backed the proposed Right to Vote Amendment (House Joint Resolution 44), sponsored by Representatives Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison, under which citizens would be guaranteed a constitutional right to vote. [43] FairVote filed a policy brief in support of the legislation, writing, "We believe that the right to vote is a cornerstone of representative democracy that depends upon broadly defined voter eligibility, universal voter access to the polls, and election integrity." [44] FairVote has also advocated universal voter registration, a system in which all citizens of legal voting age would be registered to vote automatically. [45]

Research and reports

Election research

FairVote has conducted research on both presidential and Congressional elections. Most of its presidential election research focuses on the electoral college's effects on campaigning. In its 2012 Presidential Election analysis, FairVote documented the large disparity in both time and money spent in swing states versus safe states. [46] In addition, FairVote has begun publishing data on how much time sitting presidents spend in swing states. [47]

FairVote releases two main documents of Congressional research every election cycle. The first is "Monopoly Politics", which contains predictions and analysis for each race. [48] The second is "Dubious Democracy", an assessment of how competitive elections are by state and how much power votes have in each state. [49]

In addition to Monopoly Politics and Dubious Democracy, after the 2010 midterm elections FairVote released data on the effect of third-party and spoiler candidates. The report found that there were many districts in which the winning candidate did not receive a majority of the vote. [50]

Finally, FairVote created Representation 2020, a project that hopes to achieve parity in the numbers of men and women serving in elected office. [51] Representation2020 has since become a separate nonprofit called RepresentWomen; it is still closely aligned with FairVote. [52]

Involvement in court cases

FairVote has participated in a number of court cases as amici curiae to advance IRV and proportional voting methods, particularly under the California and federal Voting Rights Act. [53] Cases in which it has 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). [54]

After the California Superior Court of Stanislaus County declared the CVRA unconstitutional in favor of the City of Modesto, plaintiffs Enrique Sanchez, Emma Pinedo and Salvador Vera appealed to the Fifth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of California. [54]

Along with Kathay Feng from the organization California Common Cause, FairVote submitted an amicus curiae brief in favor of the plaintiffs. [55]

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." [56]

Supporting the CVRA, FairVote viewed the law requiring courts to "fashion effective remedies to cure vote dilution affecting smaller and dispersed minority populations." [57]

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. [58] The Court of Appeal applied rational basis review to CVRA and declared the law constitutional, reversing the lower court's decision. [54]

United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008)

In December 2006, the United States 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 of 1965. 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." [59]

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. [59]

The defendants in 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." [60]

In 2007, the Brennan Center, representing FairVote, submitted a brief supporting cumulative voting as a remedy, but also proposing another system known as "choice voting", a process of ranking candidates. [60] 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. [61]

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. [62] 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. [60]

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis (2009)

FairVote Minnesota is an independent ally of FairVote. [63] [64]

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. [65]

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis dealt with the constitutionality of IRV, which was adopted by the City of Minneapolis for its municipal elections. [66]

Minnesota Voters Alliance, a nonprofit organization that served as the appellants, argued that the "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 instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a form of IRV that allows voters to rank multiple candidates on a single ballot. [67] They argued that this form of voting has legitimate policy reasons, such as simplifying the election process, saving money, increasing voter turnout, ensuring more diverse representation, and promoting civil election campaigns. [68]

In its defense of the City of Minneapolis, FairVote argued that the appellants bore a "heavy burden of persuasion" because they brought a facial challenge to IRV's constitutionality [69] 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". [70]

The Court affirmed the lower district court's ruling that IRV does not infringe on the appellants' constitutional rights, thus rejecting the Minnesota Voters Alliance's challenge to IRV. [66] After the result, Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, applauded the decision and said 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". [71]

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. [72]

The lawsuit claimed that Palmdale's at-large method denied minority residents effective political participation and thus violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). [72] 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, Mooney declared that the CVRA vested the court in implementing appropriate remedies in favor of the plaintiffs. [73]

The City of Palmdale immediately appealed the decision, reasoning that in 2001 Palmdale residents voted for an at-large election system. [74] The case reached the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District.

In January 2014, FairVote submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs. [75]

FairVote argued that fair representation voting, unlike at-large systems, enhanced minority groups to elect at least one candidate of their choice. [76] FairVote advocated for a number of alternative methods, such as ranked choice voting, single voting, and cumulative voting. [77] 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. [78] The California Court of Appeal denied FairVote's application to file as amicus curiae. [53]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative responsiveness paradox</span> Property of electoral systems

In social choice, the negative responsiveness, perversity, or additional support paradox is a pathological behavior of some voting rules, where a candidate loses as a result of having "too much support" from some voters, or wins because they had "too much opposition". In other words, increasing (decreasing) a candidate's ranking or rating causes that candidate to lose (win), contrary to common sense. Electoral systems that do not exhibit perversity are said to satisfy the positive response or monotonicitycriterion.

Third party, or minor party, is a term used in the United States' two-party system for political parties other than the Republican and Democratic parties.

<i>Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America</i> Court case concerning gay rights

Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America was a case involving the City of San Diego's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a ranked voting method used in single-winner elections. IRV is also known outside the US as the alternative vote (AV). Today it is in use at a national level to elect the Australian House of Representatives, the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, the President of Ireland and President of India. In Australia it is also used for elections to the legislative assemblies of all states and territories except Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, and for the Tasmanian Legislative Council.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral reform in California</span>

Electoral reform in California refers to efforts to change election and voting laws in the U.S. state of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranked-choice voting in the United States</span> Electoral system used in some cities and states

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) can refer to one of several ranked voting methods used in some cities and states in the United States. The term is not strictly defined, but most often refers to instant-runoff voting (IRV) or single transferable vote (STV), the main difference being whether only one winner or multiple winners are elected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Instant-runoff voting</span> Single-winner ranked-choice electoral system

Instant-runoff voting (IRV), is a single-winner, multi-round elimination rule that uses ranked voting to simulate a series of runoff elections. In each round, the last-place finisher according to a plurality vote is eliminated, and the votes supporting the eliminated choice are transferred to their next available preference until one of the options reaches a majority of the remaining votes. Instant runoff falls under the plurality-with-elimination family of voting methods and is most closely related to two-round runoff system.

A general election was held in Minneapolis on November 3, 2009. Minneapolis's mayor was up for election as well as all the seats on the City Council, the two elected seats on the Board of Estimate and Taxation, and all the seats on the Park and Recreation Board. This was the first election held in Minneapolis that used ranked choice voting, a collective term for instant-runoff voting and the single transferable vote.

Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues. Democrats had won 51.9% of the votes, but only 43/100 seats. Democrats sued on basis of one man, one vote, however, California Democrats supported the Indiana GOP's plan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 Burlington mayoral election</span> American municipal election in Vermont

The 2009 Burlington mayoral election was the second mayoral election since the city's 2005 change to instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as ranked-choice voting (RCV), after the 2006 mayoral election. In the 2009 election, incumbent Burlington mayor won reelection as a member of the Vermont Progressive Party, defeating Kurt Wright in the final round with 48% of the vote.

Established in 1977, Atlantic Legal Foundation, also known as ALF, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest law firm that litigates individual liberty, deregulation, free enterprise, and private property rights. The foundation was started to pursue a “deep commitment to redressing the bias against business which manifests itself in favor of narrow ‘consumer’ or ‘environmental’ concerns.” ALF has argued against environmental and worker regulations promulgated by federal agencies and works to promote “school-choice”. Atlantic Legal provides legal representation, without fee, to certain individuals, corporations, trade associations, parents, scientists, and educators.

The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) is a State Voting Rights Act (SVRA) in the state of California. It makes it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in "at-large" elections by expanding on the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there are certain conditions that must be met in order to prove that minorities are being disenfranchised: that the affected minority group is sufficiently large to elect a representative of its choice, that the minority group is politically cohesive, and that white majority voters vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority group's preferred candidates; the CVRA eliminated one of these requirements. Unlike the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is a federal law, the CVRA does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated enough to establish a majority. Certain cities that have never had minority representation or have a history of minority candidate suppression can be liable for triple damages and be forced to make changes within 90 days. That makes it easier for minority voters to sue local governments and eliminate at-large elections. The Act was eventually signed into law on 9 July 2002.

Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court which was one of a series of cases decided in 1964 that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Independent Voter Project</span>

The Independent Voter Project (IVP) is a 501(c)(4) United States nonprofit organization. It launched in 2006 with a $1 million grant from John Moores. IVP seeks to re-engage nonpartisan voters and promote nonpartisan election reform through initiatives, litigation, and voter education.

A general election was held in Minneapolis on November 7, 2017. Minneapolis's mayor was up for election as well as all the seats on the City Council, the two elected seats on the Board of Estimate and Taxation, and all the seats on the Park and Recreation Board. Voters were able to rank up to three candidates for each office in order of preference.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017 Minneapolis City Council election</span>

The 2017 Minneapolis City Council election was held on November 7, 2017, to elect the members of the Minneapolis City Council. The political composition remained unchanged, with the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) retaining 12 seats and the Green Party of Minnesota one seat. Three DFL incumbents were defeated by intraparty opponents. The new City Council convened on January 8, 2018.

Joaquin Guadalupe Avila was an American voting rights attorney and activist. Avila spent more than two decades using the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 to increase election fairness for minority voters. But as several court precedents weakened the federal Voting Rights Act, Avila conceived of state voting rights acts as a way to again strengthen minority voting rights. Thus Avila crafted the California Voting Rights Act that was enacted in 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rural–urban proportional representation</span> Canadian hybrid proportional electoral system

Rural–urban proportional representation (RUP), also called flexible district PR, is a supermixed electoral system which combines the use of single- and multi-member constituencies in a lower tier and top-up seats in an upper tier to meet the different needs of both rural and urban areas, while protecting the objective of proportionality. The term was coined by Fair Vote Canada, which devised a rural–urban system with the intention of meeting the special challenges of Canada's geography, which includes wide-flung, sparsely populated areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Top-four primary</span> Nonpartisan blanket primary

A final-four or final-five primary is an electoral system using a nonpartisan primary by multi-winner plurality in the first step.

References

  1. ↑ "National Office Staff". FairVote. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  2. 1 2 "IRS Form 990". FairVote. Retrieved 16 December 2020.
  3. ↑ "Who We Are". FairVote. Archived from the original on 7 December 2015. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  4. ↑ "PR Web Sites". Mount Holyoke College. Archived from the original on 22 December 2013. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  5. ↑ "Reforms". FairVote. Archived from the original on 27 March 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  6. ↑ "Celebrating 10 Years of Seeking Fair Elections! A Special Anniversary Edition". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  7. ↑ "OUR TEAM". FairVote. Retrieved 22 September 2023.
  8. ↑ Laugle, Laura. "Proportional Representation in Cincinnati". University of Cincinnati. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  9. ↑ "Celebrating 10 Years of Seeking Fair Elections!". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  10. ↑ "Dubious Democracy". FairVote. Archived from the original on 9 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  11. ↑ "What's Your Preference? - October 23, 1996". SF Weekly. 1996-10-23. Archived from the original on 2019-01-15. Retrieved 2019-01-15.
  12. ↑ "Where Instant Runoff Voting Is Used". FairVote. Archived from the original on 9 March 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  13. ↑ "Maryland Legislature Passes Historic National Popular Vote Plan". FairVote. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
  14. ↑ "Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  15. ↑ "Beyer Introduces Fair Representation Act To Reform Congressional Elections". Beyer.House.Gov. 26 June 2017. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  16. ↑ "2018 Program Highlights". FairVote. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  17. ↑ "2019 Message to Supporters". FairVote. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  18. ↑ "End of Year 2020". FairVote. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  19. ↑ Clyde, Don (November 13, 2022). "Nevada voters back big changes to their election system". NPR. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  20. ↑ "Oregon becomes the latest state to put ranked choice voting on the ballot". NBC News. 2023-06-27. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
  21. ↑ James, Scott (October 6, 2011). "A Critical Spotlight Shines on Ranked Choice Voting". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  22. ↑ Brandt, Steve (November 20, 2010). "New Voting Not As Simple As 1-2-3". The Minneapolis Star Tribune. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  23. ↑ Common Cause
  24. ↑ Avlon, John (March 7, 2006). "The Fight for Redistricting Reform". The New York Sun. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  25. ↑ "Electoral Vote Reform: Is It An Idea Whose Time Has Come?". Roll Cal. May 10, 2006. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  26. ↑ "Rob Richie on the Election Process". C-SPAN . Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  27. ↑ "Ex-Illinois Rep. John Anderson, who ran for president, dies". AP News. 2017-12-04. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
  28. ↑ "FairVote.org | Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Voting".
  29. ↑ "Fair Representation Act". FairVote. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
  30. 1 2 "San Francisco Successfully Uses Ranked Choice Voting For Citywide Elections, Nov. 2005" . Retrieved 20 April 2014.
  31. ↑ "City and County of San Francisco: Ranked-Choice Voting". Archived from the original on 2014-04-09. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  32. ↑ "American Legal Publishing — Online Library". Archived from the original on 2014-04-22. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  33. ↑ "Why RCV is Better | FairVote Minnesota". Archived from the original on 2014-04-23. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  34. ↑ "Measure to overhaul municipal races passes | Star Tribune". Star Tribune . Archived from the original on 2014-04-23. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  35. ↑ "Oakland IRV: Yes on Measure O!". archive.fairvote.org.
  36. ↑ "How ranked-choice voting works | Portland.gov". www.portland.gov. 2023-05-04. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
  37. ↑ "Seattle, Washington, Proposition 1A and 1B, Approval Voting Initiative and Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (November 2022)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
  38. ↑ "Ranked choice voting | NYC Board of Elections". vote.nyc. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
  39. ↑ "Santa Fe, New Mexico, Amendment 5, Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (March 2008)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
  40. ↑ "What is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?".
  41. ↑ "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-10.
  42. ↑ "N.Y. Lawmakers Aim To Curb Electoral College". The New York Sun. 31 July 2006. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
  43. ↑ "Pocan and Ellison Announce Right to Vote Amendment" (Web). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  44. ↑ Hailey, Mollie (24 June 2013). "A Constitutional Right to Vote: The Promise of House Joint Resolution 44" (PDF). FairVote Policy Perspective. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  45. ↑ "Why Universal Registration?". FairVote. 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  46. ↑ Carroll, Susan (December 2013). Gender and Elections. Cambridge University Press. p. 114. ISBN   9781107026049.
  47. ↑ "Presidential Tracker". FairVote. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  48. ↑ "Have the Midterm Elections Already Been Decided?". MSNBC. Archived from the original on 2 November 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  49. ↑ "Dubious Democracy 1982-2010". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  50. ↑ "Non-Majority Winners and Spoilers in 2010 Elections". FairVote. Archived from the original on 9 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  51. ↑ "Forum On the State of Women's Representation". New York University. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  52. ↑ Representation2020.com. "Frequently Asked Questions". RepresentWomen. Retrieved 2019-07-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  53. 1 2 "Fairvote's Brief on Fair Representation Voting in Palmdale Case". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  54. 1 2 3 "Sanchez v. City of Modesto". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  55. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 1" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  56. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 4" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  57. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 14" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  58. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 34" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  59. 1 2 "United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008)". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  60. 1 2 3 "United States v. Village of Port Chester". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  61. ↑ "Brief of Amicus Curiae in United States of America v. Village of Port Chester" (PDF). FairVote. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  62. ↑ "Brief of Amicus Curiae in United States of America v. Village of Port Chester Page 11, 12, & 13" (PDF). FairVote. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  63. ↑ "Fairvote MN and Better Ballot Campaign 10-Year Gala". FairVote. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  64. ↑ "Help FairVote MN's Ranked Choice Voting Video Win Thousands of Dollars For Fairer Elections!". FairVote. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  65. ↑ "Hennepin County Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., vs. The City of Minneapolis" (PDF). Minnesota Supreme Court. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  66. 1 2 "Hennepin County Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., vs. The City of Minneapolis — Page 2" (PDF). Minnesota Supreme Court. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  67. ↑ "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 1" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  68. ↑ "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 9 & 11" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  69. ↑ "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 12" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  70. ↑ "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 17" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  71. ↑ "FairVote Minnesota Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Ranked Choice Voting". FairVote Minnesota. Archived from the original on 23 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  72. 1 2 "R. Rex Parris Joins Voting Rights Lawsuit Against Palmdale" (Press release). GlobeNewswire. 28 January 2013. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  73. ↑ "Juan Juaregi v. City of Palmdale Statement and Decision" (PDF). Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles, Central District. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  74. ↑ "Palmdale to Appeal Voting Rights Act Decision". City of Palmdale. Archived from the original on 23 April 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  75. ↑ "Fairvote's Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs/Respondents" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  76. ↑ "Fairvote's Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs/Respondents — Pages 3 & 4" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  77. ↑ "Fairvote's Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs/Respondents — Pages 6,7, & 8" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  78. ↑ "Appellant's Preliminary Opposition to Filing of Amicus Brief by FairVote" (PDF). City of Palmdale. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.