BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1294|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1294
Author: Mullin (D) and Leno (D), et al
Amended: 9/4/07 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COM. : 3-2, 7/10/07
AYES: Migden, Padilla, Calderon
NOES: Battin, Cogdill
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-6, 8/22/07 (FAIL)
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Battin, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dutton, Florez, Runner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-8, 8/27/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton, Runner,
Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-31, 6/6/07 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Ranked voting: local elections
SOURCE : Californians for Electoral Reform
DIGEST : This bill permits any city or county to conduct
a local election using ranked voting.
CONTINUED
AB 1294
Page
2
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/07 clarify two specific
portions of the applicable procedure in determining winning
candidates participating in a ranked choice election
pursuant to this bill.
ANALYSIS : Existing law does not allow a district, a
general law city, or a general law county to conduct local
elections using ranked voting (RV).
This bill permits any city or county to conduct a local
election using 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, 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.
2.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.
3.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
AB 1294
Page
3
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, either on the first count or, 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.
When the number of elected and continuing candidates is
equal to the number of candidates to be elected, all of
the continuing candidates are declared elected even
though they may not have reached the minimum threshold of
votes necessary to be elected.
4.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.
AB 1294
Page
4
5.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.
6.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.
7.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
8.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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/07)
Californians for Electoral Reform (source)
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Common Cause
California Democratic Party
California Public Interest Research Group
City Clerks Association of California
City of Davis
City of Fort Bragg
Democracy for America
FairVote
Greenlining Institute
Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica
Latinos for America
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
AB 1294
Page
5
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
Yolo County Registrar of Voters, Freddie Oakley
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"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 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. 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."
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.
AB 1294
Page
6
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. So far, San Francisco is the
only governmental body within the state to have conducted
an election using 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. The voting system used in
San Francisco for its elections conducted using RV was
first conditionally approved by the 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Bass, Beall, Berg, Brownley, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fuentes,
Galgiani, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Huffman, Jones,
Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu,
AB 1294
Page
7
Ma, Mendoza, Mullin, Nava, Parra, Portantino, Price,
Richardson, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio, Swanson,
Torrico, Wolk, Nunez
NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill,
Blakeslee, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines,
Garcia, Garrick, Horton, Houston, Huff, Jeffries, Keene,
La Malfa, Maze, Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Sharon
Runner, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran,
Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Soto
DLW:nl 9/5/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****