BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1294
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 9, 2007

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mark Leno, Chair

               AB 1294 (Mullin and Leno) - As Amended:  April 25, 2007 

          Policy Committee:                              ElectionsVote:5-2

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  


          This bill permits any city or county to conduct a local election  
          using ranked voting (RV). Specifically, this bill:




          1)Defines "ranked voting" as 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, "instant run-off voting" (IRV) simulates 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, "choice voting"  
            (CV) fills all seats to be elected.
           
          2)Provides that RV may be adopted for use in local city or  
            county 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 specified requirements,  
            including that any city or county using RV must conduct a  
            voter education and outreach campaign--in English and in every  
            other language for which a ballot is required--to familiarize  
            voters with RV. 

          3)Prohibits the use of RV unless the election is conducted on a  
            voting system approved by the Secretary of State. 

          4)Provides a methodology for counting ballots and determining  
            the winning candidate(s) for IRV and CV elections,  
            respectively.








                                                                  AB 1294
                                                                  Page  2


           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Any costs to cities and counties would be nonreimbursable, as  
            the bill is permissible.

          2)Costs to the Secretary of State to certify any voting systems  
            to be used in RV elections would be about $115,000 per system.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . Today only charter counties or charter cities can use  
            ranked voting. Only 108 of the state's 478 cities are charter  
            cities, and only 14 of the 58 counties are charter counties.  
            According to the author, over half of all Californians live in  
            a general law city, a general law county, or both, and thus  
            are denied the opportunity to participate in ranked voting. In  
            addition, the author notes that there are no statewide  
            standards for how ranked voting elections should be conducted,  
            which can create the possibility of inconsistent  
            implementations, as well as place additional burdens on local  
            officials.

            The author states, "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,  
            both of which undermine the public's confidence in the  
            political process."

           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. 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. 

            Since the first election conducted using IRV in San Francisco,  








                                                                  AB 1294
                                                                  Page  3

            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) at San Francisco State  
            University found that 86% of polling place voters and 89% of  
            absentee voters indicated that they 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. 

           3)No Voting Systems Certified for IRV  . 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. To date, San Francisco has received conditional  
            approval from the SOS for its three elections. In August 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. Unless the SOS once again provides a "one-time"  
            recertification of the system previously used by San  
            Francisco, the city will be unable to conduct future elections  
            using IRV unless and until the state certifies a new voting  
            system with this capability.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081