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