BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ben Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1288 Hearing Date: 4/19/16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leno |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/4/16 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Darren Chesin |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Elections: local voting methods
DIGEST
This bill would authorize a city, county, or local educational
agency to conduct an election using ranked choice voting and
would specify the procedures for conducting an election using
ranked choice voting.
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1)Provides, generally, that a candidate for nonpartisan local
office who receives votes on the majority of all ballots cast
at a primary election is elected to that office, and the
office does not appear on the ballot in the ensuing general or
run-off election. For some local offices the two candidates
who receive the highest number of votes proceed to a general
or run-off election. However, the winning candidates for some
local offices are required to be determined in a single
election by only having to garner a plurality of all votes
cast.
2)Does not permit general law cities and counties, nor school
and special districts, to adopt alternative voting methods
commonly known as ranked choice or instant run-off 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
SB 1288 (Leno) Page 2
of ?
election held on a later date. Charter cities and charter
counties, however, do currently have the ability to adopt
alternative voting methods through the charter amendment
process.
This bill:
1)Provides that any local jurisdiction, as specified, instead of
being required to elect officials in a single, plurality
election, may require that if no candidate receives a majority
of all votes cast in a primary election, the candidates that
did receive the most votes for office appear in a general or
run-off election.
2)Authorizes any city, county, or local educational agency, with
voter approval, to conduct an election using ranked choice
voting, in which voters rank the candidates for office in
order of preference, as specified, and specifies the
procedures for conducting an election using ranked choice
voting as it applies to both a single-winner election and a
multiple-winner election.
3)Specifies the method by which results of a ranked choice
election shall be tabulated and reported.
4)Provides that a local jurisdiction may not conduct an election
using ranked choice voting if the county elections official
certifies that the county lacks the technological capacity to
conduct elections by this method.
5)Provides that a jurisdiction that uses ranked choice voting or
elects a candidate pursuant to (1) above, shall conduct a
voter education and outreach campaign that includes public
service announcements on radio, television, or in print media
to familiarize voters with that election method. Materials and
information disseminated as part of the campaign shall be
provided in languages other than English, as required by the
federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
6)Provides that the Secretary of State (SOS) may promulgate
regulations authorizing modifications to the vote-counting
methods described in this bill if the modifications do not
change which candidates are elected.
SB 1288 (Leno) Page 3
of ?
BACKGROUND
So How Does this System Work ? Ranked choice voting is 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 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 these rounds
fill all seats to be elected.
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.
For an election to elect two or more candidates to office, a
minimum threshold of votes necessary to be elected will be
determined according to a specified formula. 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.
Current Ranked Voting in California . In California the charter
cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro have
all conducted city elections using ranked voting.
Commensurately, San Francisco and Alameda County (where the
other cities are located) are the only jurisdictions that have
voting systems currently certified for use in California that
would accommodate an election using ranked voting.
Can Voters Vote Twice or Are Votes Counted Twice ? While
explaining the vote tabulation system is somewhat 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)
SB 1288 (Leno) Page 4
of ?
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
transferred, but there's still only one total vote per voter.
COMMENTS
1)According to the author : Under current law, general law
cities are only allowed to hold plurality winner elections
(i.e. most votes wins, even if the winner has less than
majority support). Charter cities, on the other hand, are
given more flexibility in selecting voting systems under
constitutional home rule protections within the state
Constitution. Under current law, general law cities are
prohibited from using the majoritarian voting systems commonly
used by charter cities and counties in California, for example
the traditional runoff or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
While all voting systems have trade-offs, restricting general
law cities to plurality elections locks them into a voting
system that does an especially poor job of reflecting voter
preferences. Plurality voting has a number of well-recognized
drawbacks:
First, it is not clear that a candidate elected by plurality
is a true "representative" of that area, as a majority of the
electorate voted for another candidate. Plurality voting can
even enable a candidate who is least liked by the majority of
voters to get elected due to vote-splitting, commonly referred
to as the "spoiler effect." Non-majority winners happen
frequently under plurality voting. In fact, from 2006-2014, a
candidate for a single-seat local office was elected with less
than a majority 13% of the time; when looking only at races
with 3 or more candidates, the winner is elected by a mere
plurality 42% of the time.
Second, candidates who are elected by plurality may enter
office with a weak mandate, harming their ability to govern.
Finally, plurality voting encourages insincere voting - due to
fears of "wasting their vote" or flipping an election to the
candidate they least like, plurality election systems actively
discourage voters from casting their ballot for the candidate
that best represents their preferences.
SB 1288 (Leno) Page 5
of ?
This bill would give local governments (cities, counties,
school districts, community colleges) the ability to adopt a
voting system that best matches the needs of their community.
It does not impose any new voting system, but simply gives
local jurisdictions additional options which ensure that
candidates are elected with majority support. In particular,
this bill would authorize local governments to adopt, in
addition to plurality voting:
Traditional two-round runoff: if no candidate receives over
50% of the vote, a second election is held between the top two
vote-getters to determine who wins. Los Angeles, San Diego,
San Jose, Sacramento, and many counties use this system.
Ranked Choice Voting: voters rank the candidates on their
ballots. Votes are counted in runoff elimination rounds until
only two candidates remain, eliminating the need for a second
election. This bill would also authorize local governments to
use the multi-seat version of RCV. Several cities, including
San Francisco and Oakland use RCV.
Numerous other general law cities and counties are exploring
using ranked choice voting, 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.
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
Since 2006 there have been numerous prior bills intended to
permit local jurisdictions to use ranked choice voting for
either regular or special elections. All of these bills either
failed passage in the Legislature or were vetoed by the
Governor, including all of the following: SB 596 (Bowen of
2006), AB 1294 (Mullin and Leno of 2007), AB 1121 (Davis of
2009), SB 2732 (Eng of 2010), and SB 1346 (Hancock of 2010).
SB 1288 (Leno) Page 6
of ?
POSITIONS
Sponsor: California Common Cause
Californians for Electoral Reform (Co-sponsor)
Support: Asian American Action Fund
FairVote
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
Oppose:None received
-- END --