BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1294
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Curren Price, Chair
AB 1294 (Mullin) - As Amended: April 11, 2007
SUBJECT : Ranked voting: local elections.
SUMMARY : Permits any city, county, or district to conduct a
local election using ranked voting (RV). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Defines the following terms, for the purposes of this bill:
a) "Ranked voting" means an election method in which voters
rank the candidates for office in order of preference, and
the ballots are counted in rounds. In the case of a
single-winner election, these rounds simulate a series of
runoffs until only two candidates remain, with the
candidate having the greater number of votes being declared
the winner. In the case of a multiple-winner election,
these rounds fill all seats to be elected.
b) "Qualified candidate" means any candidate listed on the
ballot for the election or any write-in candidate qualified
for participation in the election.
c) "Ranking" for a candidate on a voter's ballot is the
number assigned to that candidate by the voter to express
his or her preference for that candidate. The "highest
ranking" is the ranking with the lowest numerical value for
a qualified candidate. The "highest continuing ranking" is
the ranking with the lowest numerical value for a
continuing candidate.
d) "Continuing ballot" means a ballot that counts towards a
candidate.
e) "Continuing candidate" means a qualified candidate that
has not been elected or eliminated.
f) "Majority of votes" means more than 50 percent of the
votes coming from continuing ballots.
2)Allows any city, county, or district to conduct a local
AB 1294
Page 2
election using RV. Provides that RV may be adopted for use in
local elections by approval of a ballot measure submitted to
the voters by the governing body, by an initiative measure, or
by a charter amendment, subject to the following requirements:
a) Any city, county, or district that uses RV must conduct
a voter education and outreach campaign to familiarize
voters with RV. Requires this education and outreach
campaign to be conducted in English and in every language
that a ballot is required to be made available pursuant to
state and federal law.
b) The RV ballot must allow voters to rank as many choices
as there are candidates, unless the voting equipment cannot
feasibly accommodate a number of rankings on the ballot
equal to the number of candidates, in which case the
elections official may limit the number of choices that a
voter may rank to the maximum number allowed by the
equipment. This limit may not be less than three
candidates.
c) A RV ballot may not interfere with a voter's ability to
rank a write-in candidate.
d) A mark for an unqualified write-in candidate on an RV
ballot is not considered a mark for a candidate, and that
ballot is advanced to the next candidate.
e) A RV ballot is advanced to the next ranking if the
ballot reaches a ranking with no candidate indicated.
f) If two or more candidates tie for the smallest number of
votes, the candidate to eliminate is chosen by lot.
g) A ballot that has no candidates indicated at any ranking
is declared an "undervote." If any ballot reaches a
ranking with more than one candidate indicated, that ballot
is declared an "overvote." If a ballot cannot be advanced
because no further candidates are ranked on the ballot,
that ballot is declared "exhausted." Any ballot that has
been declared an undervote, an overvote, or exhausted shall
not count towards any candidate in that round or in any
subsequent round.
3)Provides that a RV method used to elect a single candidate to
AB 1294
Page 3
office is known as "instant runoff voting" (IRV). Provides
that IRV elections shall be conducted in the following manner:
a) At the beginning of each round, every ballot is counted
as a vote towards the candidate indicated by the highest
continuing ranking on that ballot.
b) If any candidate receives a majority of votes from the
continuing ballots, that candidate is elected. If no
candidate receives a majority of votes from the continuing
ballots, the candidate receiving the smallest number of
votes is eliminated, and every ballot counting towards that
candidate is instead counted for the next-ranked continuing
candidate on that ballot.
c) If there are only two candidates remaining, and those
two candidates have the same number of votes from the
continuing ballots, that tie is broken by lot.
d) If during the elimination stage of any round, a
candidate has more votes than the combined vote total of
all candidates with fewer votes, but that candidate does
not have a majority of votes, all the candidates with fewer
votes than the candidate are eliminated simultaneously.
4)Provides that a RV method used to elect two or more candidates
to office is known as "choice voting" (CV). Provides that CV
elections shall be conducted in the following manner:
a) The minimum threshold of votes necessary to be elected
is determined by dividing the total number of votes cast
for that office by one plus the number of seats to be
filled, then by adding one vote to that total and ignoring
any fraction.
b) Each ballot is allocated to the candidate with the
highest ranking on that ballot.
c) Each candidate that receives the minimum threshold of
votes to be elected is declared elected.
d) If a candidate on the first count has a number of
highest ranking votes exactly equal to the minimum number
of votes needed to be elected, the candidate is declared
elected and the counted ballots indicating that candidate
AB 1294
Page 4
as a highest ranking are put aside and the other rankings
on the ballots are not examined.
e) If a candidate on the first count gains more than the
minimum number of votes needed to be elected, the candidate
is declared elected and the number of votes in excess of
the number of votes needed to be elected (or the number of
surplus votes) is recorded. All the ballots on which that
candidate had the highest ranking are reexamined and
assigned to candidates not yet elected according to the
highest continuing ranking on those ballots. Those ballots
are allocated according to a "transfer value," which is
determined by taking the number of surplus votes cast for
the elected candidate divided by the total number of votes
received by the elected candidate, calculated to four
decimal places.
f) If two or more candidates on the first count gain more
than the minimum number of votes needed to be elected, all
those candidates are declared elected. Each of the ballots
of the candidate with the largest number of highest ranking
votes are reexamined first and assigned (at the transfer
value) to candidates not yet elected.
g) If a candidate receives more than the minimum number of
votes needed to be elected as the consequence of a transfer
of votes from an elected candidate, the number of votes in
excess of the number of votes needed to be elected are
transferred to the other candidates at a transfer value.
In this case, the transfer value for ballots transferred to
the candidate from one or more elected candidates is
determined pursuant to the following formula:
Surplus votes cast for the elected candidate, divided
by the total number of votes received by the elected
candidate, multiplied by the previous transfer value
of the ballot received by that candidate, calculated
out to five decimal places and rounded to the fourth
decimal place.
The transfer value for other ballots is determined by
taking the number of surplus votes cast for the elected
candidate divided by the total number of votes received by
the elected candidate, calculated to four decimal places.
AB 1294
Page 5
h) At any stage at which no candidate has a number of votes
equal to or greater than the minimum number of votes needed
to be elected, the candidate with the smallest number of
votes is eliminated, and ballots that were transferred to
that candidate from other candidates are transferred at the
transfer value at which the ballots were received. All
other ballots are transferred at full value.
i) When all but one of the candidates to be elected have
been elected, and only two candidates remain in the count,
the candidate with the most votes is elected, even though
the candidate may not have reached the minimum threshold of
votes necessary to be elected.
5)Requires the instructions for voters in an election that uses
RV to read substantially as follows:
To vote in this election, indicate by selecting or marking
a '1' in the voting square to the right of your first
choice, a '2' in the voting square to the right of your
second choice, a '3' in the voting square to the right of
your third choice, and so on. Do not give the same number
to more than one candidate. You may rank as many or as few
of the candidates as you choose, up to the limit specified,
if any. Your second choice will not hurt your first
choice, your third choice will not hurt your first two
choices, and so on.
You may include one or more qualified write-in candidates
in your rankings by writing each person's name in one of
the blank spaces provided for that purpose after the names
of the other candidates for the same office, and then
writing the desired ranking in the voting square to the
right of that name.
6)Allows the above instructions for voters to be modified as
appropriate for the specific voting equipment used, as long as
the intent is preserved.
7)Requires the following information to be reported after each
RV election:
a) A "summary report" listing the candidate vote totals in
each round, along with the cumulative number of undervotes,
overvotes, and exhausted ballots in each round.
AB 1294
Page 6
b) A "ballot image report" listing the candidate or
candidates indicated at each ranking for each ballot, along
with the precinct of the ballot and whether the ballot was
cast absentee.
c) A "comprehensive report" that breaks down the numbers in
the summary report by precinct.
8)Requires preliminary versions of the summary report and ballot
image report to be made available as soon as possible after
the commencement of the official canvass of the vote and prior
to the one percent manual tally.
EXISTING LAW does not allow a district, a general law city, or a
general law county to conduct local elections using RV.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Despite growing public interest in using ranked voting
systems such as Instant Runoff Voting, most local
jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems
under current law. Today only charter counties or charter
cities can use ranked voting, but over three-fourths of
cities and counties - and nearly all districts - are
general law jurisdictions and don't have these options.
Over half of all Californians live in a general law city, a
general law county, or both, and are currently denied the
opportunity to benefit from these better voting systems.
In addition, there are no statewide standards for how
ranked voting elections should be conducted, creating both
the possibility of inconsistent implementations, as well as
additional burdens on local officials.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner on a
single-winner election has the support of the majority of
voters in a single election. By eliminating the need for a
costly runoff election it saves local governments a lot of
money-about $2 million per election in San Francisco alone.
IRV also eliminates vote-splitting and spoiler effects,
AB 1294
Page 7
both of which undermine the public's confidence in the
political process.
Numerous other general law cities and counties are
exploring using ranked voting methods, and the Legislature
should allow these cities the flexibility they need to
serve their voters. Cities and counties deserve the
opportunity to use the electoral systems that best address
their unique needs.
2)Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco : Proposition A, a
charter amendment approved by the voters of the City and
County of San Francisco at the March 5, 2002 statewide primary
election, requires elections for the offices of Mayor, City
Attorney, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff,
Assessor-Recorder, Treasurer, and Board of Supervisors to be
conducted by IRV. Prior to the approval of that ballot
measure, San Francisco held the first round of its local
elections in November, with a runoff election (if necessary)
about a month later. Turnout at a runoff elections typically
was much lower than the turnout at the first round of that
election.
Since the approval of Proposition A, San Francisco has conducted
three elections using IRV (November 2004, November 2005, and
November 2006). San Francisco has not yet conducted a mayoral
election using IRV, though it is scheduled to do so in
November of this year.
Prior to the first election conducted using IRV in San
Francisco, the city spent $776,000 for outreach and education
efforts, with $210,000 of that allocated to community
organizations to work in partnership with the city to educate
voters. Voter education materials were translated into
Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Russian, and Vietnamese. The city
conducted over 700 outreach events, sent a citywide
educational mailer, and placed public service announcements
and newspaper advertisements, among other outreach efforts.
Since the first election conducted using IRV in San Francisco, a
number of studies, surveys, and reports have been issued
evaluating the impact of IRV. A May 2005 report prepared by
the Public Research Institute (PRI), an institute housed at
San Francisco State University, found that 86% of polling
place voters and 89% of absentee voters indicated that they
AB 1294
Page 8
understood IRV fairly well or perfectly well, although levels
of understanding were lowest among voters with little
education and low income. African American (23%) and Latino
(20%) voters were more likely to report a lack of
understanding than Asian (13%) or White (12%) voters. A
majority of both polling place (61%) and absentee (77%) voters
said that they preferred the IRV system to holding a runoff
election a month later. A July 2006 report prepared by PRI
analyzing the November 2005 election found similar results,
although a smaller percentage of voters (51%) said that they
preferred the IRV system to holding a runoff election a month
later.
Thus far, San Francisco is the only governmental body within the
state to have conducted an election using IRV. To the
committee's knowledge, no jurisdiction in the state has ever
conducted an election using CV.
3)Lack of IRV-Ready Certified Voting Systems : There are no
voting systems currently certified for use in California that
have the capability to tabulate ballots cast in an IRV or CV
election. The voting system used in San Francisco for its
elections conducted using RV was first conditionally approved
by the Secretary of State (SOS) for use in San Francisco's
elections on April 30, 2004, which permitted San Francisco to
use the system on a one-time basis for the November 2004
General Election. After receiving reports on the system's
performance in that election at a public hearing on February
17, 2005 the SOS conditionally recertified the system for use
from March 7, 2005 until December 31, 2005 only in the City
and County of San Francisco. On August 3, 2006 the SOS
received an application requesting a one-time, final approval
of the system for use in the November 2006 General Election.
That application was approved, under the condition that the
system not be used again for any election in California. As a
result, while San Francisco has been able to conduct elections
using IRV, it is currently in negotiations with a new vendor
to provide a voting system that has the capability to tabulate
ballots cast in an IRV election. Unless the SOS once again
provides a "one-time" recertification of the system previously
used by San Francisco, San Francisco will be unable to conduct
future elections using IRV unless the state certifies a new
voting system that is able to conduct IRV elections.
While at least one county other than San Francisco is believed
AB 1294
Page 9
to be in negotiations to procure an IRV-capable voting system,
no such systems are currently certified for use in the state
of California, nor have any such systems been submitted for
certification, and the timeline for any such certification is
unclear. Furthermore, there has never been a CV-capable
voting system certified for use in California.
Given the lack of certified voting equipment that is capable of
conducting an election using RV, and given the lack of
certainty about the availability of such equipment in the
immediate future, the committee may wish to consider whether
it would be desirable to delay consideration of this measure
until such equipment is available.
4)IRV in Other Jurisdictions : Although San Francisco is the
only jurisdiction in California that has used IRV for an
election, a number of other jurisdictions have approved IRV
for use in future elections. The cities of Oakland, Berkeley,
and San Leandro have all approved charter amendments to
conduct city elections using IRV. To the committee's
knowledge, no jurisdiction in California has plans to conduct
an election using CV.
Given that only three elections have ever been conducted
anywhere in the state using IRV, and given that all three of
those elections were conducted in the same jurisdiction (San
Francisco), it is difficult to evaluate how voters around the
state might respond to IRV. On the other hand, three more
cities are scheduled to use IRV for city elections in the next
two years, which will provide a greater amount of information
about how voters in California respond to IRV. The committee
may wish to consider whether the three IRV elections conducted
in San Francisco provide enough information about that voting
method to authorize any city, county, or district to choose to
use that method. Similarly, the committee may wish to
consider whether it is appropriate to allow any city, county,
or district to conduct an election using CV given that there
have not been any elections in the state that have been
conducted using CV.
5)Charter vs. General Law Jurisdictions : As noted above, three
cities and the City and County of San Francisco have all
chosen to conduct local elections using IRV. These
jurisdictions were able to choose to use IRV because they are
charter cities. Certain home rule provisions in California's
AB 1294
Page 10
state constitution allow cities and counties to exercise a
greater degree of control over local affairs by adopting a
charter. According to information from the League of
California Cities, 108 of California's 478 cities are charter
cities, and according to information from the California State
Association of Counties, 14 of California's 58 counties are
charter counties. Cities and counties that are not charter
jurisdictions are commonly known as "general law"
jurisdictions.
This bill would allow any general law city or county, and any
district, to choose to use IRV or CV for local elections, a
choice that is already available to charter cities and
counties. If a general law city or county wants to use IRV or
CV for local elections under existing law, that city or county
could adopt a charter pursuant to the provisions of the
California Constitution.
The committee should consider whether this bill is necessary,
given that charter jurisdictions are already permitted to
conduct elections using RV, and given that general law cities
and counties have a method to become charter jurisdictions.
6)Voter Education : This bill requires any county, city, or
district that chooses to use IRV or CV to conduct a voter
education and outreach campaign to familiarize voters with RV,
and requires that this effort be conducted in English and in
every language that a ballot is required to be made available
pursuant to state and federal law. The requirement does not,
however, specify how extensive the voter education program
must be. Because IRV and CV have not been widely used in the
United States, it is likely that very few voters will be
familiar with those voting methods absent a substantial voter
education campaign. If it is the committee's desire to move
this bill forward, it may wish to consider whether this bill
should provide minimum standards for voter education campaigns
conducted in jurisdictions that choose to adopt IRV or CV.
7)CV or "Single Transferable Vote" : CV, as provided for in this
bill, is also sometimes referred to as a "Single Transferable
Vote" system. In an electoral system that uses CV, each voter
only has one vote, regardless of the number of candidates to
be elected. For instance, on a school board with three
candidates to be elected at large, a CV system allows each
voter to rank any or all candidates, but each voter
effectively only has one vote in filling those three seats.
AB 1294
Page 11
If a voter's first choice is elected to the board with exactly
the number of votes necessary to be elected, that voter's
ballot is not used in determining which candidates will fill
the other two seats. If a voter's first choice receives more
than the number of votes necessary to be elected, only a
portion of that voter's vote is transferred to the candidates
who are ranked lower on the voter's ballot in determining how
to fill the other two seats.
Consider, for instance, an election with four candidates
(Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) running for three
seats on a board. Suppose that there are 100 voters-40 of
which prefer Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, in
that order, 34 of which prefer Washington, Jefferson, Adams,
and Madison, in that order, and the other 26 of which prefer
Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington, in that order.
Under the way that such an election has traditionally been
conducted in California, each voter would be able to vote for
up to three candidates. If all 100 voters voted for three of
their top choices, the ballot count in this election would be
as follows:
Adams: 100 votes
Jefferson: 100 votes
Washington: 74 votes
Madison: 26 votes
As such, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington would be elected.
Under CV, however, the election results would be very different.
Pursuant to this bill, the first round count would be as
follows:
Washington: 74
Madison: 26
Adams: 0
Jefferson: 0
The minimum number of votes necessary to be elected is based on
the following formula:
1+ (# of votes / (# of seats to be filled +1)) or, in this
case:
1+ (100/ (3+1)) = 1+ (100/4) = 1+25 = 26
AB 1294
Page 12
In this case, both Washington and Madison have received at least
the minimum number of votes necessary to be elected (26).
Because Madison has exactly the minimum number of votes
necessary to be elected, all the ballots indicating Madison as
the highest ranked candidate are put aside and the other
rankings are not examined.
Washington, on the other hand, has more than the minimum number
of votes necessary to be elected, so his surplus votes are
transferred at the appropriate transfer value to the other
candidates. The number of "surplus votes" to be transferred
is equal to the difference between the number of votes
received by Washington (74) and the minimum number of votes
needed to be elected (26), which is 48 votes. Those votes are
transferred at the appropriate transfer value, which is
determined by the following formula:
(# of surplus votes for Washington / total number of votes
received by Washington), or:
(48/74) = 0.6486
Of the 74 voters who ranked Washington first on their ballot, 40
preferred Adams second, and 34 preferred Jefferson second.
So, pursuant to the transfer value, those ballots are
transferred as follows:
40 ballots for Adams times the transfer value of 0.6486 =
25.9440 votes
34 ballots for Jefferson times the transfer value of 0.6486
= 22.0524 votes
Even though neither Adams nor Jefferson has the minimum number
of votes necessary to be elected (26 votes), because there are
only 2 candidates remaining, and because Adams has more votes
than Jefferson, Adams is elected. As such, the three
candidates elected to the board would be Washington, Madison,
and Adams.
In a sense, then, CV acts as a form of proportional
representation. In this case, a candidate who was the last
choice of 74 percent of the voters is elected because that
candidate was the first choice of the remaining 26 percent of
the voters. As a result, CV can allow a cohesive minority to
elect a candidate of their choice to a board at a multi-seat
election, even if the majority of voters are not inclined to
AB 1294
Page 13
vote for that candidate.
8)Arguments in Support : According to the sponsor of this bill,
Californians for Electoral Reform:
AB 1294 is an important step towards improving our
democracy at the local level by giving local jurisdictions
additional options in how they elect their representatives.
Charter cities already have the option to use ranked
voting systems like Instant Runoff Voting and Choice
Voting, but general law cities, which constitute the vast
majority of jurisdictions, have not such flexibility. By
giving local governments the ability to use these systems,
AB 1294 gives local governments the tools they need to
respond to the needs of their citizens.
AB 1294 simply allows local jurisdictions to use IRV and
Choice Voting, but does not mandate that any jurisdictions
use these systems. In other words, this bill is strictly
permissive and not proscriptive. It empowers local elected
officials and voters in these cities and counties to do
what they know will work best for them.
We believe Instant Runoff Voting provides significant
advantages over plurality elections or two-round runoff
elections. IRV elects a candidate with the support of the
majority of voters in a single election. This saves local
governments a significant amount of money-upwards of $2M
per election for San Francisco alone. At the same time,
IRV increases voter turnout and also reduces negative
campaigning.
Choice Voting, a ranked system like IRV but for legislative
bodies, ensures that all constituencies achieve fair
representation, and also allows more voters to cast
effective votes, i.e. votes that actually help to elect
someone. It gives minority communities a chance to be
represented in areas where they traditionally have not been
represented.
9)Concerns Raised : While not taking a position on this bill,
the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
raises the following concerns about this bill:
There are currently no voting systems certified for
AB 1294
Page 14
use in the State of California that can accommodate
alternative forms of voting. Though one voting system
was conditionally certified for use in an alternative
voting method election, most voting systems cannot
accommodate such methods of voting. The one system that
was certified only tabulated single office contests.
County elections officials are obligated to
administer elections for school and special districts,
and administer many elections on behalf of cities. Many
of these elections are consolidated with statewide
elections. Allowing local jurisdictions the option of
conducting elections by ranked choice would obligate
counties financially and force the acquisition of new
voting equipment (that does not exist at this writing).
Alternative voting methods add another layer of
complexity to the administration of elections and, due to
the highly complex computer programs required to tabulate
such votes, force counties to be totally reliant on
vendors for the tabulation of votes cast. It would not
be possible for independent verification of the election
results, including the 1% manual tally that is performed
as part of the canvass of votes.
These forms of voting are confusing to voters,
particularly in consolidated elections, where most
contests would be tabulated using the regular voting
method and others by ranked choice, and possibly others
by choice voting.
None of the calculations needed to determine the
majority or the threshold can be made until all absentee
and provisional votes are counted, further delaying
election results, and jeopardizing the counties' ability
to meet statutory canvass deadlines.
1)Technical Errors : This bill contains technical errors that
should be corrected if this bill passes out of this committee.
The technical corrections that should be made include the
following:
On page 2, line 22, the word "voters" should be replaced by
"votes".
On page 2, line 29, the word "their" should be replaced by "his
or her".
On page 6, line 31, strike out the second occurrence of the
AB 1294
Page 15
words "shall be".
Additionally, the text on page 4, lines 16-38 and lines 1-8 on
page 5 is confusing, and appears to be duplicative. Committee
staff recommends replacing that text with the following:
(a) The ballots shall be counted in rounds pursuant to the
following:
(1) In the first round, every ballot shall count as a vote
towards the candidate indicated by the highest continuing
ranking on that ballot.
(2) After every round, if a candidate receives a majority of
votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be
declared elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate receiving
the smallest number of votes shall be eliminated, and every
ballot counting towards that candidate shall be advanced to
the next-ranked continuing candidate on the ballot. If there
is a tie between two or more candidates for the smallest
number of votes, the tie shall be resolved by lot. All the
ballots shall be counted again in a new round.
(4) If there are only two candidates remaining, and those two
candidates have the same number of votes from the continuing
ballots, the tie shall be resolved by lot.
AB 1294
Page 16
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality
California Public Interest Research Group
City Clerks Association of California
Democracy for America
FairVote
Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica
Latinos for America
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
New America Foundation
San Mateo County Democracy for America
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer &
Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Mateo County
3 individuals
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094