BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Senator Ron Calderon, Chair BILL NO: AB 1294 HEARING DATE: 7/10/07 AUTHOR: MULLIN ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin AMENDED: 7/3/07 FISCAL: YES SUBJECT Ranked voting: local elections DESCRIPTION Existing law does not permit general law cities and counties, nor school and special districts, to adopt alternative voting methods commonly known as ranked, instant run-off, or choice voting. These types of jurisdictions are limited to traditional voting methods whereby candidates are elected by either attaining a plurality of votes in a single election or through a run-off. Charter cities and counties, however, currently have the ability to adopt alternative voting methods through the charter amendment process. This bill permits any city or county to conduct a local election using ranked voting (RV). Specifically, this bill: a.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, also known as "instant run-off voting" (IRV), 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, also known as "choice voting" (CV), these rounds fill all seats to be elected. b.For single winner elections , in the first round, every ballot shall count as a vote towards the candidate indicated by the highest ranking on that ballot. After every round, if a candidate receives a majority of votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate is declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate receiving the smallest number of votes will be eliminated, and every ballot counting towards that candidate will be advanced to the next-ranked continuing candidate on the ballot. c.For an election to elect two or more candidates to office , a minimum threshold of votes necessary to be elected will be determined by dividing the total number of votes cast for that office by one more than the number of offices to be filled and then adding one vote, and then ignoring any fraction. All ballots are counted and each ballot will be allocated as a vote to the candidate receiving the highest ranking. Each candidate that receives the minimum threshold of votes necessary to be elected will be declared elected. 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 (the surplus) is recorded. All of the elected candidate's ballots are then reexamined and assigned to candidates not yet elected according to the highest continuing ranking on the ballots of those who gave a first preference vote to the elected candidate. These votes are allocated according to a specified "transfer value." 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. 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 AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 2 were received. All other ballots are transferred at full value. 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. d.Capacity . The ranked voting ballot shall allow voters to rank as many choices as there are candidates. In the event that the voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate a number of rankings on the ballot equal to the number of candidates, the elections official may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to the maximum number allowed by the equipment. However, this limit shall never be less than three. e.Write-in Votes . The ballot may not interfere with a voter's ability to rank a write-in candidate but a mark for an unqualified write-in candidate will not be considered a mark for a candidate. f.Voter Approval . Permits any city or county to conduct a local 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. g.Voter Education . Requires any city or county using a ranked voting method to conduct a voter education and outreach campaign to familiarize voters with ranked voting in English and in every language that a ballot is required to be made available pursuant to state law and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 h.SOS Approval . Prohibits the use of RV unless the election is conducted on a voting system approved by the Secretary of State (SOS) or unless the RV ballots are to be counted by hand. BACKGROUND AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 3 Charters Only . Currently, 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. The San Francisco Treat . 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, 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. 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 AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 4 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. Jurisdictions Currently Using Alternative Voting Methods Besides San Francisco, a number of jurisdictions around the world use an alternative voting method or have approved their use, including: Berkeley voters approved an IRV process in 2004 by a 72%-28% margin for use at its next city election. Oakland voters approved the use of IRV in special elections to fill vacancies on the city council in 2000 by a 72%-28% margin. San Leandro voters approved the use of IRV in 2000 by a 63%-37% margin. Cambridge, Massachusetts uses multi-winner choice voting for its city elections. Arkansas and Louisiana provide their overseas military personnel with IRV absentee ballots for all local and statewide races because their primary and general elections are close together. Stanford, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego are five of the three dozen colleges and universities in the United States that have adopted IRV or multi-winner choice voting for their student body elections. Ireland uses IRV to elect its president and choice voting to elect its Legislature. Australia uses IRV for its lower house and Single Transferable Voting for its upper house. British Columbia has authorized the use of a preference voting system for its legislative races. London uses IRV to select its mayor. Burlington, Vermont and Ferndale, Michigan voters have voted to go to an IRV system for future elections. AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 5 COMMENTS 1.According to the author , despite growing public interest in using ranked voting systems such as [IRV], most local jurisdictions are not able to use [RV] systems under current law. Today only charter counties or charter cities can use [RV], 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. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner of 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. 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.Sounds Complicated - Or is It ? While the formulas for determining winners and transfer values, etc. under this bill may appear complicated, that will not be evident to the voters. Voters will merely have to rank the candidates on the ballot according to their preference. 3.Can Voters Vote Twice or Are Votes Counted Twice ? While explaining the vote tabulation system is complex, no voter gets to vote twice and no vote is counted twice. In a single-winner system where the last place candidate is eliminated, voters who listed that candidate first on their ballot then get to use the second choice on their ballot once that first choice is eliminated. They may get two (or more) chances to use their vote, but they never get more than one vote. The multi-winner system is somewhat more complicated because of how a portion of the "excess votes" can be AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 6 transferred, but there's still only one total vote per voter. For example, imagine the winning threshold in a multi-winner election is 10 and Candidate A gets 20 votes. Therefore, he/she has 10 "excess" votes, but the way those votes are redistributed equates to him/her only needing 1/2 a vote from the 20 people who listed him first on their ballot, so the other 1/2 of a vote is transferred to the candidate listed second on those twenty ballots. 4.CACEO Concerns . While not taking a position on this bill, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO) raises the following concerns about this bill: There are currently no voting systems certified for 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. AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 7 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. PRIOR ACTION Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 5-2 Assembly Appropriations Committee: 11-5 Assembly Floor: 47-31 POSITIONS Sponsor: Californians for Electoral Reform Support: Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality California Common Cause California Democratic Party City of Davis Democracy for America FairVote City of Fort Bragg Latinos for America League of Women Voters of California Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Voting Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund New America Foundation San Mateo County Democracy for America Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer, San Mateo County Oppose: None received AB 1294 (MULLIN) Page 8