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