BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1288|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1288
Author: Leno (D), et al.
Amended: 4/4/16
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 3-1, 4/19/16
AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg
NOES: Anderson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Elections: local voting methods
SOURCE: California Common Cause
Californians for Electoral Reform
DIGEST: This bill permits specified local jurisdictions to
require that candidates must obtain a majority of votes cast to
be elected (by runoff election if necessary) rather than winning
with only a plurality in a single election and also authorizes
local jurisdictions to conduct 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
SB 1288
Page 2
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
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
SB 1288
Page 3
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 may promulgate
regulations authorizing modifications to the vote-counting
methods described in this bill if the modifications do not
change which candidates are elected.
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
SB 1288
Page 4
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)
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
SB 1288
Page 5
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
three 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.
This bill gives local governments (cities, counties, school
districts, and 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 authorizes 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.
SB 1288
Page 6
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 also authorizes 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 RCV, 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, 2006),
AB 1294 (Mullin and Leno, 2007), AB 1121 (Davis, 2009), SB 2732
(Eng, 2010), and
SB 1346 (Hancock, 2010).
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified5/10/16)
California Common Cause (co-source)
Californians for Electoral Reform (co-source)
Asian American Action Fund
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - California
SB 1288
Page 7
Democracy for America
FairVote
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Oakland Rising
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/9/16)
None received
Prepared by:Darren Chesin / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
5/11/16 15:52:47
**** END ****