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