Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[i]n a facial challenge, once a constitutional application is identified, it is inappropriate to speculate regarding other hypothetical circumstances that might arise”
• noting that a declaratory judgment action challenging the implementation of instant runoff voting was resolved initially by the district court
• reasoning that claims that a voting system was unconstitutional based on reallocation of surplus votes in a multi-seat election and its “non-monotonic” nature failed in part because the claims were based on hypothetical situations where the alleged harm may or may not occur
• \[I]t is only because votes for continuing candidates are carried forward and combined with subsequent-choice votes of voters for eliminated candidates that any candidate can eventually win.\
• explaining the referendum process and ordinance implementing \instant runoff voting\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).