BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  April 21, 2009

                  ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
                                  Paul Fong, Chair
                 AB 1121 (Davis) - As Introduced:  February 27, 2009
           
          SUBJECT  :  Elections: ranked voting.

           SUMMARY  :  Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to approve not  
          more than 10 cities and counties, in total, to conduct a local  
          election using ranked voting (RV) if certain conditions are met.  
           Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Defines the following terms, for the purposes of this bill:

             a)   "Ranked voting" means an election method in which voters  
               rank the candidates for office in order of preference, and  
               the ballots are counted in rounds.

             b)   "Qualified candidate" means any candidate listed on the  
               ballot for the election or any write-in candidate qualified  
               for participation in the election.

             c)   "Ranking" for a candidate on a voter's ballot is the  
               number assigned to that candidate by the voter to express  
               his or her preference for that candidate.  The "highest  
               ranking" is the ranking with the lowest numerical value for  
               a qualified candidate.  The "highest continuing ranking" is  
               the ranking with the lowest numerical value for a  
               continuing candidate.

             d)   "Continuing ballot" means a ballot that counts towards a  
               candidate.

             e)   "Continuing candidate" means a qualified candidate that  
               has not been elected or eliminated.

          2)Allows a total of 10 general law cities and counties to  
            conduct a local election using RV.  Allows a general law city  
            or county to submit a written request to the SOS for  
            authorization to use RV in a local election, and requires the  
            SOS to approve each request in the order of receipt until a  
            total of 10 cities and counties have been authorized to use  
            RV.









                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  2

          3)Prohibits a city or county from conducting a local election  
            using RV unless that election is conducted on a voting system  
            that is capable of conducting the election using RV and that  
            voting system has been certified for use in the state by the  
            SOS, or the election is conducted by another procedure  
            approved by the SOS which at a minimum include detailed  
            specifications for counting, auditing, and reporting of  
            results.

          4)Provides that RV may be adopted for use pursuant to this bill  
            in a general law city or county by approval of a ballot  
            measure submitted to the voters by the governing body or by an  
            initiative measure.

          5)Requires a city or county that uses RV in an election to  
            conduct that election subject to the following conditions:

             a)   The city or county must conduct a voter education and  
               outreach campaign to familiarize voters with RV.  This  
               education and outreach campaign must be conducted in  
               English and in every language that a ballot is required to  
               be made available pursuant to state and federal law.

             b)   The RV ballot must allow voters to rank as many choices  
               as there are candidates, unless the voting equipment cannot  
               feasibly accommodate a number of rankings on the ballot  
               equal to the number of candidates, in which case the  
               elections official may limit the number of choices that a  
               voter may rank to the maximum number allowed by the  
               equipment.  This limit may not be less than three  
               candidates.

             c)   A RV ballot may not interfere with a voter's ability to  
               rank at least two write-in candidates.  A mark for an  
               unqualified write-in candidate on an RV ballot is not  
               considered a mark for a candidate, and that ballot is  
               advanced to the next candidate.

          6)Provides that a RV method used to elect a single candidate to  
            office is known as "instant runoff voting" (IRV).  Provides  
            that IRV elections shall be conducted in the following manner:

             a)   At the beginning of each round, every ballot is counted  
               as a vote towards the candidate indicated by the highest  
               continuing ranking on that ballot.








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  3


             b)   After each round, if more than two candidates remain,  
               the candidate receiving the smallest number of votes is  
               eliminated, and each ballot counted toward that candidate  
               is advanced to the next-ranked continuing candidate on the  
               ballot.  If two or more candidates tie for the smallest  
               number of votes, the candidate to eliminate is chosen by  
               lot.

             c)   Once only two candidates remain, the candidate with the  
               greatest number of votes is elected.  If there is a tie  
               between the two candidates, the tie is broken by lot.

             d)   If during the elimination stage of any round, a  
               candidate has more votes than the combined vote total of  
               all candidates with fewer votes, but that candidate does  
               not have a majority of votes, all the candidates with fewer  
               votes than the candidate are eliminated simultaneously.

             e)   Provides that if a voting system cannot feasibly  
               continue the count until only two candidates remain, the  
               system may terminate the count when a candidate receives a  
               majority of votes from the continuing ballots, and the  
               candidate who received a majority of votes shall be  
               declared elected.

          7)Provides that a RV method used to elect two or more candidates  
            to office is known as "choice voting" (CV).  Provides that CV  
            elections shall be conducted in the following manner:

             a)   The minimum threshold of votes necessary to be elected  
               is determined by dividing the total number of votes cast  
               for that office by one plus the number of seats to be  
               filled, then by adding one vote to that total and ignoring  
               any fraction.

             b)   Each ballot is allocated to the candidate with the  
               highest ranking on that ballot.

             c)   If a candidate on the first count has a number of  
               highest ranking votes exactly equal to the minimum number  
               of votes needed to be elected, the candidate is declared  
               elected and the counted ballots indicating that candidate  
               as a highest ranking are put aside and the other rankings  
               on the ballots are not examined.








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  4


             d)   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 (also known as  
               "surplus votes") is recorded.  All the ballots on which  
               that candidate had the highest ranking are reexamined and  
               assigned to candidates not yet elected according to the  
               highest continuing ranking on those ballots.  Those ballots  
               are allocated according to a "transfer value," which is  
               determined by taking the number of surplus votes cast for  
               the elected candidate divided by the total number of votes  
               received by the elected candidate, calculated to four  
               decimal places.

             e)   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.  The ballots for the  
               other elected candidates are then assigned (at the transfer  
               value) in order according to the number of highest ranking  
               votes each candidate received.

             f)   If a candidate receives more than the minimum number of  
               votes needed to be elected as the consequence of a transfer  
               of votes from an elected candidate, the number of votes in  
               excess of the number of votes needed to be elected are  
               transferred to the other candidates at a transfer value.   
               In this case, the transfer value for ballots transferred to  
               the candidate from one or more elected candidates is  
               determined pursuant to the following formula:

                    Surplus votes cast for the elected candidate, divided  
                    by the total number of votes received by the elected  
                    candidate, multiplied by the previous transfer value  
                    of the ballot received by that candidate, calculated  
                    out to four decimal places.

               The transfer value for other ballots is determined by  
               taking the number of surplus votes cast for the elected  
               candidate divided by the total number of votes received by  
               the elected candidate, calculated to four decimal places.









                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  5

             g)   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 were received.  All  
               other ballots are transferred at full value.

             h)   When the number of elected and continuing candidates is  
               equal to the number of candidates to be elected, all the  
               continuing candidates are declared elected even though they  
               may not have reached the minimum threshold of votes  
               necessary to be elected.

          8)Requires the following information to be reported after each  
            RV election:

             a)   A "summary report" listing the candidate vote totals in  
               each round, along with the cumulative number of undervotes,  
               overvotes, and exhausted ballots in each round.

             b)   A "ballot image report" listing the candidate or  
               candidates indicated at each ranking for each ballot, along  
               with the precinct of the ballot and whether the ballot was  
               cast by mail.

             c)   A "comprehensive report" that breaks down the numbers in  
               the summary report by precinct.

          9)Requires preliminary versions of the summary report and ballot  
            image report to be made available as soon as possible after  
            the commencement of the official canvass of the vote and prior  
            to manual tally of ballots cast in one percent of precincts  
            that is required under existing law.  Additionally requires  
            ballot image reports to be posted on the elections official's  
            Internet Web site as soon as possible after the close of polls  
            at an election where RV is used.

          10)Contains a January 1, 2019 sunset date.

           EXISTING LAW  does not allow general law cities or counties to  
          conduct elections using RV.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown









                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  6

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Purpose of the Bill  :  According to the author:

               Existing law provides procedures for the nomination of  
               candidates for elective offices in general law cities.  It  
               specifies the procedures for the conduct of the election,  
               the canvass of ballots, and certification of persons  
               elected to office.  Related provisions require the holding  
               of a runoff election if no candidate has been elected at  
               the municipal election.

               Despite growing public interest in using ranked voting  
               systems such as instant runoff voting, most local  
               jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems  
               under current law. Today only charter counties or charter  
               cities can use ranked voting, but over three-fourths of  
               cities and counties 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.

               In addition, there are no statewide standards for how  
               ranked voting elections should be conducted, creating both  
               the possibility of inconsistent implementations, as well as  
               additional burdens on local officials, in those charter  
               cities and counties that have already adopted ranked  
               voting.

               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 can save local governments a lot  
               of money-about $1.6M 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 general law cities and counties are exploring  
               using ranked voting methods or have an interest in doing so  
               if they are allowed some municipal authority to use these  
               systems, 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  








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  7

               systems that best address their unique needs.

               AB 1121 is a limited "local option" bill that would allow a  
               small number of general law cities or general law counties  
               to use ranked voting systems, specifically instant runoff  
               voting and choice voting, to elect local officials and  
               legislative bodies.  This bill would specify the ranked  
               voting method as it applies to both a single-candidate  
               election and a multiple-candidate election. Only 10 cities  
               or counties would be granted this authorization. AB 1121  
               would NOT mandate that any jurisdictions use ranked voting,  
               and municipalities wishing to do so would need to obtain  
               voter approval for the change.

           2)Author's Amendments  :  The author has proposed minor amendments  
            to this bill to eliminate two instances in which it contains  
            blank spaces where a specific term used in the bill is to be  
            defined.  Those amendments are as follows:

          On page 5, strike out line 23.

          On page 7, line 39, strike out "For the" and strike out line 40.

          This analysis reflects those proposed author's amendments.  
           
           3)Pilot Projects  :  This bill proposes a pilot project under  
            which 10 cities and counties are allowed to use RV at a single  
            local election between now and January 1, 2019.  However, the  
            pilot project that would be created by this bill lacks many of  
            the procedures and guidelines that typically apply to pilot  
            projects to ensure that the pilot project is useful in  
            evaluating the desirability of extending the policy proposed  
            by the pilot project to statewide application.

          First, this bill allows the first 10 cities or counties that  
            sign up to participate in the pilot project.  Because the  
            localities that will participate in the pilot project will be  
            chosen on a "first come, first served" basis, there is no  
            guarantee that the 10 cities or counties will be  
            representative of the state as a whole, or will provide data  
            that will allow the Legislature to effectively evaluate the  
            pilot project.  If the 10 cities and counties that participate  
            in the pilot project are not representative of the state as a  
            whole, it is unlikely that the pilot project will provide  
            useful information for the Legislature to evaluate whether it  








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  8

            is appropriate to expand the application of this bill when the  
            pilot project ends in 2019.

          Second, this bill provides no mechanism or standards for  
            evaluating the success or failure of the pilot project.  Under  
            the provisions of this bill, cities and counties that conduct  
            an election using RV are not required to produce any kind of  
            report, are not required to evaluate voters' satisfaction with  
            RV, are not required to evaluate the costs (including any cost  
            savings) of using RV, and are not required to investigate and  
            disclose any problems that arise in conducting an election  
            using RV.  If the pilot project proposed by this bill does not  
            provide this information in a standardized format, it is  
            unlikely that the pilot project will be useful to the  
            Legislature in evaluating the desirability of allowing general  
            law cities and counties to use RV for local elections.

          Given these issues, the author and the committee may wish to  
            consider amendments to require the SOS to choose participants  
            for the pilot project from among the cities and counties that  
            express interest in conducting an election using RV in a  
            manner designed to ensure that the cities and counties that  
            participate in this pilot project are representative of the  
            state.  Additionally, the author and the committee may wish to  
            consider requiring cities and counties that participate in the  
            pilot project to provide information to the SOS about the  
            items identified above in a format determined by the SOS, and  
            to require the SOS to monitor some of those elections and  
            compile the information from the cities and counties along  
            with the SOS's observations in a report to the Legislature  
            evaluating the conduct of RV elections in those cities and  
            counties and making recommendations about whether the  
            Legislature should authorize broader use of RV in local  
            elections.

           4)Lack of RV-Ready Certified Voting Systems  :  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 first 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  








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  9

            SOS conditionally approved 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.   
            Nonetheless, on September 14, 2007, the SOS subsequently  
            approved the use of the San Francisco's voting system through  
            December 31, 2008.

          San Francisco subsequently obtained a different IRV-capable  
            system, but that system also was approved on a "one time"  
            basis for the November 2008 election.  It was granted another  
            "one time" approval for use in the May 19, 2009 statewide  
            special election, but at that election, San Francisco is not  
            expected to conduct any races using IRV.  

          As a result, while San Francisco has been able to conduct  
            elections using IRV, it has only been due to a series of "one  
            time" approvals, all of which have since expired or will  
            expire subsequent to the May 19, 2009 statewide special  
            election.  Furthermore, there has never been a CV-capable  
            voting system certified for use in California.

          Given the lack of certified voting equipment that is capable of  
            conducting an election using RV, and given the lack of  
            certainty about the availability of such equipment in the  
            immediate future, the committee may wish to consider whether  
            it would be desirable to delay consideration of this measure  
            until such equipment is available.

          Alternately, the committee may wish to consider requiring the  
            SOS to study and evaluate the functionality and security of  
            voting systems that are capable of conducting RV elections,  
            and to declare publicly when such a system is certified for  
            use in the state before accepting applications from cities and  
            counties to participate in the pilot project proposed by this  
            bill.

           5)IRV in Other Jurisdictions  :  Although San Francisco is the  
            only jurisdiction in California that has used IRV for an  
            election, a number of other jurisdictions have approved IRV  
            for use in future elections.  The cities of Oakland, Berkeley,  
            and San Leandro have all approved charter amendments to  








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  10

            conduct city elections using IRV.  To the committee's  
            knowledge, no jurisdiction in California has plans to conduct  
            an election using CV.

          Given that only five elections have ever been conducted anywhere  
            in the state using IRV, and given that all five of those  
            elections were conducted in the same jurisdiction (San  
            Francisco), it is difficult to evaluate how voters around the  
            state might respond to IRV.  On the other hand, three more  
            cities are scheduled to use IRV for city elections in the next  
            few years, which will provide a greater amount of information  
            about how voters in California respond to IRV.

          Given that a natural pilot project of sorts will be conducted  
            over the next few years as a number of other cities use IRV  
            for local elections, the need and desirability for the  
            Legislature to create a pilot project is unclear.

           6)Charter vs. General Law Jurisdictions  :  As noted above, three  
            cities and the City and County of San Francisco have all  
            chosen to conduct local elections using IRV.  These  
            jurisdictions were able to choose to use IRV because they are  
            charter cities.  Certain home rule provisions in California's  
            state constitution allow cities and counties to exercise a  
            greater degree of control over local affairs by adopting a  
            charter.  According to information from the League of  
            California Cities, 112 of California's 480 cities are charter  
                                                         cities, and according to information from the California State  
            Association of Counties, 14 of California's 58 counties are  
            charter counties.  Cities and counties that are not charter  
            jurisdictions are commonly known as "general law"  
            jurisdictions.  
           
           7)CV or "Single Transferable Vote"  :  CV, as provided for in this  
            bill, is also sometimes referred to as a "Single Transferable  
            Vote" system.  In an electoral system that uses CV, each voter  
            only has one vote, regardless of the number of candidates to  
            be elected.  For instance, on a city council with three  
            candidates to be elected at large, a CV system allows each  
            voter to rank any or all candidates, but each voter  
            effectively only has one vote in filling those three seats.   
            If a voter's first choice is elected to the board with exactly  
            the number of votes necessary to be elected, that voter's  
            ballot is not used in determining which candidates will fill  
            the other two seats.  If a voter's first choice receives more  








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  11

            than the number of votes necessary to be elected, only a  
            portion of that voter's vote is transferred to the candidates  
            who are ranked lower on the voter's ballot in determining how  
            to fill the other two seats.

          Consider, for instance, an election with four candidates  
            (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) running for three  
            seats on a board.  Suppose that there are 100 voters-40 of  
            which prefer Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, in  
            that order, 34 of which prefer Washington, Jefferson, Adams,  
            and Madison, in that order, and the other 26 of which prefer  
            Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington, in that order.   
            Under the way that such an election has traditionally been  
            conducted in California, each voter would be able to vote for  
            up to three candidates.  If all 100 voters voted for three of  
            their top choices, the ballot count in this election would be  
            as follows:

               Adams: 100 votes
               Jefferson: 100 votes
               Washington: 74 votes
               Madison: 26 votes

            As such, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington would be elected.

          Under CV, however, the election results would be very different.  
             Pursuant to this bill, the first round count would be as  
            follows:

               Washington:    74
               Madison:       26
               Adams:         0
               Jefferson:     0
           
           The minimum number of votes necessary to be elected is based on  
            the following formula:

               1+ (# of votes / (# of seats to be filled +1)) or, in this  
          case:
               1+ (100/ (3+1)) = 1+ (100/4) = 1+25 = 26
            
          In this case, both Washington and Madison have received at least  
            the minimum number of votes necessary to be elected (26).   
            Because Madison has exactly the minimum number of votes  
            necessary to be elected, all the ballots indicating Madison as  








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  12

            the highest ranked candidate are put aside and the other  
            rankings are not examined.

          Washington, on the other hand, has more than the minimum number  
            of votes necessary to be elected, so his surplus votes are  
            transferred at the appropriate transfer value to the other  
            candidates.  The number of "surplus votes" to be transferred  
            is equal to the difference between the number of votes  
            received by Washington (74) and the minimum number of votes  
            needed to be elected (26), which is 48 votes.  Those votes are  
            transferred at the transfer value, which is determined by the  
            following formula:

               (# of surplus votes for Washington / total number of votes  
            received by Washington), or:
               (48/74) = 0.6486
           
           Of the 74 voters who ranked Washington first on their ballot, 40  
            preferred Adams second, and 34 preferred Jefferson second.   
            So, pursuant to the transfer value, those ballots are  
            transferred as follows:

               40 ballots for Adams times the transfer value of 0.6486 =  
               25.9440 votes  
                34 ballots for Jefferson times the transfer value of 0.6486  
               = 22.0524 votes  

             Even though neither Adams nor Jefferson has the minimum number  
            of votes necessary to be elected (26 votes), because there are  
            only 2 candidates remaining, and because Adams has more votes  
            than Jefferson, Adams is elected.  As such, the three  
            candidates elected to the board would be Washington, Madison,  
            and Adams.

            In a sense, then, CV acts as a form of proportional  
            representation.  In this case, a candidate who was the last  
            choice of 74 percent of the voters is elected because that  
            candidate was the first choice of the remaining 26 percent of  
            the voters.  As a result, CV can allow a cohesive minority to  
            elect a candidate of their choice to a board at a multi-seat  
            election, even if the majority of voters are not inclined to  
            vote for that candidate.  

          8)Arguments in Support  :  According to the sponsor of this bill,  
            Californians for Electoral Reform:








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  13


               AB 1121 simply allows 10 cities or counties to use ranked  
               voting, but does not mandate that any jurisdictions use  
               these systems.  In other words, this bill is strictly  
               permissive and not proscriptive.  It empowers local elected  
               officials and voters in these cities and counties to do  
               what they know will work best for them.  Because this  
               legislation only allows 10 cities or counties to use ranked  
               voting for a limited time period, and because voter  
               approval is required in order for these jurisdictions to  
               use ranked voting, this measure is extremely modest in  
               scope and low-risk.  Furthermore, this legislation incurs  
               no cost to the state.

               We believe Instant Runoff Voting provides significant  
               advantages over both plurality elections and two-round  
               runoff elections.  IRV elects a candidate with the support  
               of the majority of voters in a single election.  This saves  
               local governments a significant amount of money-upwards of  
               $1.6M per election for San Francisco alone.  At the same  
               time, IRV increases voter turnout and also reduces negative  
               campaigning.

               Choice voting, a ranked system like IRV but only for  
               legislative bodies, ensures that all constituencies achieve  
               fair representation, and also allows more voters to cast  
               effective votes, i.e. votes that actually help to elect  
               someone.  It gives minority communities a chance to be  
               represented in areas where they traditionally have not  
               been.

           9)Technical Issue  :  Page 3, line 32 of this bill provides that  
            RV may be authorized for a local jurisdiction by a charter  
            amendment, among other methods.  However, another provision of  
            this bill limits the bill's application to general law (i.e.  
            non-charter) cities and counties only.  To correct these  
            conflicting provisions, committee staff recommends the  
            following amendment:

          On page 3, line 32, strike out "or charter amendment".  
           
           10)Previous Legislation  :  AB 1294 (Mullin) of 2007 would have  
            allowed any city, county, or district to conduct a local  
            election using RV.  AB 1294 was vetoed by Governor  
            Schwarzenegger.  In his veto message, the Governor wrote:








                                                                  AB 1121
                                                                  Page  14


               This bill would allow cities and counties, subject to voter  
               approval, to conduct a local election using a ranked voting  
               system.  This represents a drastic change to the way we  
               vote.  Although there are some proponents for ranked  
               voting, which allows for so-called "instant runoff"  
               elections, I am concerned that we don't yet know enough  
               about how voters will react to such a dramatic change in  
               the way they vote.  For instance, charter cities and  
               counties already have the right to hold ranked voting  
               elections, yet only one city has done so thus far, and that  
               was on a trial basis only.

               Further, the machines necessary to implement ranked voting  
               are not widely available nor have any been certified by the  
               Secretary of State.  As the Secretary of State recently  
               decertified the vast majority of electronic voting machines  
               used for traditional elections, it is premature to even  
               contemplate moving to ranked voting tomorrow until we have  
               resolved any issues with the machines needed for how we  
               vote today.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
          Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
          California Common Cause
          CALPIRG
          FairVote
          League of California Cities
          League of Women Voters of California
          New America Foundation
          Secretary of State Debra Bowen
          Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer, San Mateo County

           Opposition 
           
          None on file.
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094