"City councils are not courts," harrumphed a Star Tribune editorial, inveighing against an expected St. Paul council vote Wednesday to prevent an instant runoff voting referendum from reaching the ballot this November.

A council majority that opposes IRV has taken heart from City Attorney John Choi’s opinion, argued in a letter to the council, that because IRV is likely unconstitutional, the council can stop the petition-driven charter amendment from going forward.

Whatever the merits of IRV or Choi’s opinion, it’s not at all out of bounds for city councils to act as courts. They do it all the time, whenever, for example, liquor licenses and certain zoning or land use issues come before them. Hamline University professor David Schultz puts it this way: "The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that a decision is quasi-judicial when there is a) an investigation into disputed claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; b) application of those facts to a prescribed standard; and c) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim."

The St. Paul IRV ballot initiative doesn’t appear to meet those standards, Schultz says, and in his view the council is out of bounds making calls on constitutional law. But Choi argues that a nearly century-old Duluth case sets a precedent for the council to turn down IRV. KFAI (90.3 and 106.7 FM) hosts a radio debate on the constitutional question at 11 a.m. Wednesday, and the council meeting begins at 3 p.m.