In this case, the Judiciary struck down Instant Runoff Voting that required voters to rank every candidate as unconstitutional and that voting is a form of protected expression. This ruling holds that future elections using the same Instant Runoff Voting system will be unconstitutional. This ruling does not apply to partial-ranked voting systems.
On March 7, 2017, Erin Taylor filed a petition with the Judiciary alleging that the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) system being used in the election for DSG President and Executive Vice-President violated her right to freedom of speech by requiring the voter to rank every candidate up for election. The petitioner requested that future elections be carried out with a different voting system.
The election for DSG President and Executive Vice-President was held from noon March 7 to noon March 8. The voting was done through DukeGroups and would not allow a vote to be cast until all three candidates for President were ranked and the voter had chosen either the one candidate running for Executive Vice-President or “no confidence.” There were instructions to email Attorney General Sabriyye Pate if a voter wished to write in a different candidate. DSG argued that technical limitations prevented them from implementing a partial-ranked voting system in which candidates may be left unranked.
Does requiring a full ranking of candidates in an IRV system constitute impermissible compelled expression under Section 3 of the Bill of Rights (Article IX of the Constitution)? If the above question is answered in the affirmative, do technical limitations in the voting system given to DSG permit the infringements articulate?
Application of the Powers of the Judiciary
The DSG Judiciary is authorized to rule in this case pursuant to Article V, Section 5, Clause A: “The Judiciary shall decide cases in which the DSG or an officer of the DSG in an official capacity is a party…” because the DSG Attorney General was the respondent in this case.
On compelled expression Firstly, the Judiciary finds that voting is included as a form of protected expression. The Judiciary further finds that IRV as instituted in this election violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression by compelling the petitioner to express relative preference which she would not have expressed had partial-ranked voting been used instead.
On technical limitations Firstly, the Judiciary is unconvinced by arguments that technical limitations prevent partial-ranked voting as previous elections used partial-ranked voting and were also conducted through DukeGroups. Secondly, the Judiciary states that “logistical ease generally cannot trump constitutional requirements.”
Conclusion The IRV system as implemented in the Presidential and Executive Vice-Presidential election for the 2017-2018 academic year is unconstitutional, and voting a form of protected expression. Although partial-ranked voting often comes up in the case for the sake of comparison, the Judiciary does not recommend any specific voting system for future elections so long as the chosen system meets constitutional requirements.