BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1288
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Shirley Weber, Chair
SB
1288 (Leno) - As Amended June 15, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 24-12
SUBJECT: Elections: local voting methods.
SUMMARY: Authorizes a general law city, a general law county,
or an educational district, as specified, to conduct a local
election using ranked choice voting (RCV), as specified.
Permits a general law city, a school district, and a district
not formed for municipal purposes to elect a candidate for
nonpartisan office at a primary election by majority vote,
instead of a plurality vote, as specified. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Allows a general law city, a school district, and a district
not formed for municipal purposes to require a candidate for
nonpartisan office that does not receive a majority of all
votes cast in a primary election to appear in a general or
runoff election, instead of being required to elect officials
using a single, plurality election. Requires a proposal to
conduct local elections by majority vote to be submitted to
the electors of the jurisdiction at a regularly scheduled
election and become operative only if a majority of votes cast
favor adoption of the proposal.
SB 1288
Page 2
2)Allows a general law city, a general law county, county board
of education, school district, or community college district,
with voter approval, to conduct a local election using RCV, as
specified. Provides that RCV may be authorized for use in
local elections by a resolution or ordinance adopted by the
local jurisdiction's governing body or by an initiative
measure, subject to the following requirements:
a) The proposal must specify whether the members shall be
elected at-large or by or from districts, as specified.
b) The proposal to elect members or local officers by RCV
shall only apply prospectively and shall not become
operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the
jurisdiction at a regularly scheduled election and a
majority of the votes cast on the question favor the
adoption of the proposal.
c) Any member or local officer elected to a full term by
RCV shall only be elected in a general election held in
November of an even-numbered year.
d) Provides that a local jurisdiction is not authorized by
these provisions to elect members or officers at-large if
it is required by a court order or judgement to elect its
members or officers by or from districts or trustee areas,
as specified.
e) Requires a special election to fill one or more
vacancies by RCV and an election to elect one or more other
members of the local jurisdiction's governing body to full
terms using RCV that are held on the same day to be
SB 1288
Page 3
consolidated into a single contest if the governing body is
elected at-large or the contests to be consolidated are for
members elected by or from the same district or trustee
area.
3)Permits a county elections official, if a county board of
education, school district, or community college district
authorizes the use of RCV, to certify that the county lacks
the technological capacity to conduct elections by this method
before that method is used in any election, as specified.
Requires the elections official to provide this certification
at least seven days, and not more than 60 days, before the
later of 113 days before the election or the first day on
which a declaration of candidacy may be filed. Requires a
county board of education, school district, or community
college district, if a county elections official provides the
certification described above, to conduct its next election in
the same manner as its most recent election was conducted.
4)Requires a jurisdiction that uses RCV or changes from a
plurality vote method to a majority vote method pursuant to
this bill, to conduct a voter education and outreach campaign
before each election conducted and until the conclusion of the
second general election conducted in this manner. Requires a
campaign to include public meetings and public service
announcements on radio, television, or in print media,
including media serving additional supported language
communities, if available, to familiarize voters with that
election method. Requires materials and information
disseminated as part of the campaign to be provided in all
additional supported languages and be accessible to
individuals with disabilities.
5)Defines the following terms for the voter education and
outreach provisions of this bill:
SB 1288
Page 4
a) "Additional supported language" means a language for
which a jurisdiction is required to provide voting
materials and assistance under the federal Voting Rights
Act of 1965 or for which the Secretary of State (SOS) has
determined that it is necessary to provide facsimile
ballots at a precinct within the jurisdiction pursuant to
existing law.
b) "Additional supported language community" means a
community that speaks an additional supported language.
6)Requires a jurisdiction, in collaboration with the county
elections official, to develop a plan describing how it will
conduct the voter education and outreach campaign. Requires
the plan to include all of the following information:
a) How the jurisdiction will use media, which may include
social media, newspapers, radio, and television, to inform
voters about an upcoming election;
b) What information will be publicly available on the
elections official's Internet Web site;
c) What information will be included in the sample ballot
and vote by mail materials;
d) How the jurisdiction will conduct direct outreach to
voters, including voters with disabilities;
SB 1288
Page 5
e) How the jurisdiction will have a community presence to
educate voters, including voters with disabilities; and,
f) How the jurisdiction will educate voters within each
additional supported language community, as defined.
7)Requires a jurisdiction, before finalizing a plan to publish a
draft plan and hold, at least 10 days after publication of its
draft plan, at least two public meetings to discuss the plan.
Requires the jurisdiction to make a good faith effort to
invite each of the following to at least one of those public
meetings:
a) Representatives, advocates, and other stakeholders
representing each additional supported language community;
and,
b) Representatives from the disability community and
community organizations and individuals that advocate on
behalf of, or provide services to, individuals with
disabilities.
8)Requires a public meeting to be noticed 10 days in advance and
be held in a location that is accessible to people with
disabilities. Requires a jurisdiction, if requested to do so
at least 48 hours before a public meeting, to provide either
or both of the following:
a) Reasonable accommodations and modifications, and
auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective
communication with people with disabilities; and,
b) Translation services in any additional supported
SB 1288
Page 6
language.
9)Requires all materials provided by the voter education and
outreach campaign, including materials provided on the
Internet Web site of the elections official, sample ballots
and vote by mail materials, and materials provided through
direct outreach and community presence, to be provided in the
additional supported languages and be accessible to
individuals with disabilities.
10)Provides that RCV is a method that allows voters to rank
candidates for office in order of preference and that
elections conducted by RCV may be used for both single-winner
and multiple-winner elections. Provides that elections
conducted by RCV are tabulated in rounds, as specified by this
bill.
11)Defines the following terms for the RCV provisions of this
bill:
a) "Abstention" means a ballot that is to be counted for
the highest-ranked continuing candidate, but that does not
contain a highest-ranked continuing candidate or overvote,
and the voter did at least one of the following:
i) Failed to assign an available ranking to every
qualified candidate and the ballot allowed the voter to
rank an additional qualified candidate without creating
an overvote ranking; or,
ii) Assigned a qualified candidate two or more different
rankings.
b) "Continuing candidate" means a qualified candidate who
has not yet been elected or defeated.
c) "Highest-ranked continuing candidate" means the
continuing candidate on a ballot assigned a ranking with a
SB 1288
Page 7
numerical value that is lower than the ranking for both of
the following:
i) Any other continuing candidate; or,
ii) Any overvote ranking on the ballot.
d) "Instant runoff voting" means a system of RCV used to
elect a single candidate to office.
e) "Majority of votes" means greater than 50-percent of the
votes counting for all continuing candidates.
f) "Other exhausted vote" means a ballot that is to be
counted for the highest-ranked continuing candidate, but
that does not contain a highest-ranked continuing candidate
or overvote, and is not an abstention.
g) "Overvote" means a ballot that is to be counted for the
highest-ranked continuing candidate, contains an overvote
ranking, and does not contain a highest-ranked continuing
candidate.
h) "Overvote ranking" means a ranking assigned to more than
one qualified candidate.
i) "Ranking" means the number assigned to a candidate to
indicate a voter's preference for that candidate. The
ranking with the lowest numerical value indicates the
voter's first-choice preference, with the ranking
increasing in numerical value as the voter's preference
decreases.
j) "Single transferable vote" means a system of RCV used to
elect two or more candidates to office.
12)Provides that a ballot that does not contain a highest-ranked
continuing candidate shall not count for any candidate, but
rather shall count as an overvote, abstention, or other
SB 1288
Page 8
exhausted vote. Provides that if two or more candidates are
tied with the fewest number of votes, the candidate to be
defeated shall be determined by the lot, publically conducted
with notice.
13)Requires a ballot to allow voters to assign a different
ranking to each candidate and at least two write-in
candidates. Permits an elections official, if a jurisdiction's
voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate that number of
rankings on the ballot, to limit the number of choices a voter
may rank to the greater of three candidates or the maximum
number allowed by the equipment.
14)Requires an elections official, in an election conducted by
RCV, to provide ballot instructions in the following form:
"To vote in this election, indicate your first-choice
candidate by selecting or marking a "1" in the voting
square to the right of that candidate, a "2" in the voting
square to the right of your second-choice candidate, a "3"
in the voting square to the right of your third-choice
candidate, and so on. Do not give the same number to more
than one candidate. You may rank as many or as few of the
candidates as you choose, up to the limit specified, if
any. Your second choice will not affect your first choice;
your third choice will not affect your first two choices,
and so on. You may include one or more qualified write-in
candidates in your rankings by writing each write-in
candidate's name in one of the blank spaces provided for
that purpose after the names of the other candidates for
the same office, and then writing the desired ranking in
the voting square to the right of that name."
15)Requires an election using instant runoff voting (IRV) to be
tabulated in a series of one or more rounds, each conducted
with the following steps:
SB 1288
Page 9
a) Each ballot shall count as one vote for the
highest-ranked continuing candidate on that ballot.
b) The tabulation shall be complete if either of the
following situations occur:
i) There is only one continuing candidate, in which
case that candidate shall be designated as elected; or,
ii) There are exactly two continuing candidates, in
which case the candidate with a majority of votes shall
be designated as elected, and the other candidate shall
be designated as defeated.
c) If a continuing candidate has a majority of votes and
the elections official determines that tabulation cannot
feasibly continue until there are only two continuing
candidates, the majority candidate shall be designated as
elected, all other continuing candidates shall be
designated as defeated, and the tabulation shall be
complete.
d) If a candidate satisfies both the following conditions,
then all candidates with fewer votes may be designated as
defeated:
i) At least one other candidate has at least as many
votes as the candidate; and,
ii) The candidate has more votes than the total votes
for all candidates with fewer votes.
SB 1288
Page 10
e) If a candidate was not designated as defeated in this
round pursuant to subdivision (d), the continuing candidate
with the fewest votes shall be designated as defeated.
f) Each ballot counted for a candidate as defeated pursuant
to subdivision (d) and (e), shall be transferred to and
counted for the highest-ranked continuing candidate on the
ballot.
16)Requires an election using single transferable vote (STV) to
be tabulated in a series of one or more rounds, each conducted
with the following steps:
a) In the first round:
i) All ballots shall be counted, and each ballot shall
be counted for the highest-ranked continuing candidate on
that ballot, using a transfer value of one vote. The
"transfer value" of a ballot is the one vote or portion
of a vote after a surplus transfer pursuant to
subdivision (f) below that the ballot will contribute to
the vote total for the ballot's highest-ranked continuing
candidate.
ii) The "threshold," which is the number of votes in
excess of which a candidate will be designated as
elected, shall be determined by dividing the total number
of ballots counting for all candidates pursuant to
paragraph (1) by one more than the number of offices to
be filled and rounding up the quotient to five decimal
places.
SB 1288
Page 11
b) For each continuing candidate, the votes for the
candidate are the sum of the transfer values of all ballots
counted for that candidate.
c) In the first round, if the number of continuing
candidates is less than or equal to the number of offices
to be filled, all continuing candidates shall be designated
as elected, and the tabulation is complete.
d) Each continuing candidate with votes in excess of the
threshold shall be designated as elected, and his or her
votes in excess of the threshold calculated shall be
treated as his or her surplus.
e) If the number of candidates designated as elected is
equal to the number of offices to be filled, all continuing
candidates shall be designated as defeated, and the
tabulation shall be complete.
f) For each candidate that is designated as elected and has
a surplus, the surplus of that candidate shall be
transferred as follows:
i) The surplus factor for the candidate shall be
calculated as the quotient, rounded down to five decimal
places, of the candidate's surplus divided by the total
number of votes for the candidate.
ii) Each ballot counted for the candidate shall be
transferred to, and counted for, the highest-ranked
continuing candidate on that ballot using a new transfer
SB 1288
Page 12
value, calculated as the product, rounded down to five
decimal places, of the old transfer value times the
candidate's surplus factor.
iii) "Residual surplus" means the number of surplus votes
not transferred due to rounding. The residual surplus for
the transfer equals the surplus for the candidate minus
the sum of the new transfer values for every ballot
transferred from the candidate. The residual surplus
shall not be counted for any candidate or be part of
other exhausted votes.
iv) After the candidate's surplus is transferred and his
or her residual surplus is calculated, the candidate does
not have a surplus, and the candidate's vote total for
the remainder of the tabulation shall be equal to the
threshold.
g) If a surplus was not transferred in this round pursuant
to subdivision (f), the continuing candidate with the
fewest votes shall be designated as defeated. If the
number of continuing candidates plus the number of
candidates that have been designated as elected equals the
number of offices to be filled, all continuing candidates
shall be designated as elected and the tabulation is
complete. Provides that each ballot that counted for the
defeated candidate shall be transferred to, and counted
for, the highest-ranked continuing candidate on that ballot
using the current transfer value and after all ballots have
been transferred, a defeated candidate shall have zero
votes.
17)Permits the SOS to promulgate regulations authorizing
SB 1288
Page 13
modifications to the vote-counting methods described in this
bill if the modifications do not change which candidates are
elected.
18)Provides that if two or more candidates are elected in the
same contest, and the offices to be filled by the contest have
terms of different remaining lengths, the candidates shall
fill the offices based on the number of votes they received in
the first round so that a candidate with a higher first-round
vote total fills an office with an equal or longer term.
19)Provides the following terms for the RCV reporting provisions
of this bill:
a) "Contest cast selections record report" means a report
that lists all of the following for each ballot counted in
the tabulation:
i) The candidate or candidates indicated at each
ranking;
ii) The precinct in which the ballot was cast; and,
iii) Whether the ballot was cast by mail.
b) "Contest tabulation report" means a report that lists
the following:
SB 1288
Page 14
i) The number of ballots counted;
ii) The votes received by each candidate in each round
of the tabulation; and,
iii) The cumulative number of votes counted as an
overvote, abstention, other exhausted vote, and
cumulative residual surplus in each round of the
tabulation.
c) "Tabulation by precinct report" means a report that, for
each precinct, lists all of the information required in a
contest tabulation report.
20)Requires an entry in the contest tabulation report, for a
given tabulation, to equal the total of all corresponding
precinct entries that are in the tabulation by precinct
report. Provides that whether a candidate is designated as
elected or defeated, and the round in which a candidate is
designated as elected or defeated, shall be the same for the
contest tabulation report and for every precinct in the
tabulation by precinct report.
21)Requires the votes for each round in a contest tabulation
report or in a tabulation by precinct report to be reported,
as specified.
22)Requires ballots, in a contest cast selections record report,
to be listed in a manner that does not permit the order in
which they were cast in each precinct to be reconstructed.
Provides that an overvote ranking may be reported without
SB 1288
Page 15
reporting to which qualified candidates the ranking was
assigned.
23)Requires an elections official to publish a contest
tabulation report for the final tabulation of the official
canvass in conjunction with the certified statement of the
results. Requires the elections official to also publish at
least one of the following reports for the final tabulation of
the official canvass:
a) A tabulation by precinct report; or,
b) A contest cast selections record report.
24)Permits an elections official, if the elections official
determines that tabulation of all rounds is not feasible on
election night, to provide the contest tabulation report
totals for only the first round of tabulation or only a tally
of the rankings of "1".
25)Requires the elections official, for a contest that is
tabulated with a voting system, to do all of the following:
a) Tabulate the results as soon as the elections official
determines it is feasible after the close of the polls, and
publish the corresponding contest tabulation report;
b) Tabulate the results for the last preliminary results on
election night and publish a corresponding contest
SB 1288
Page 16
tabulation report; and,
c) Publish the corresponding contest cast selections record
report whenever the results of a tabulation is published,
as specified.
26)Requires an elections official to promptly post a report made
available to the public on his or her official Internet Web
site. Requires a contest cast selections record report made
available to be provided in a plain text electronic format.
Requires an elections official, if an elections official does
not have an official Internet Web site, to promptly make the
report available to the public by other means and notify the
public of the report's location through a notice prominently
displayed in an appropriate location in his or her office.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides, in general, that any candidate for a nonpartisan
office who receives votes on a majority of all the ballots
cast for that office at a primary election is elected to that
office and prohibits the office from appearing on the ballot
at the ensuing general election. Provides that where two or
more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a
greater number of candidates receives a majority than the
number to be elected, those candidates that receive the
highest number of votes proceed to the general or run-off
election, as specified.
2)Requires certain local jurisdictions to determine the winning
candidate in a single election by a plurality of votes cast.
SB 1288
Page 17
3)Does not allow a general law city, general law county, school
district, or special district to conduct local elections using
RCV.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: 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). See Elec. Code Sec. 15452 and Gov. Code Sec.
34871. (Charter cities, on the other hand, are given
more flexibility in selecting voting systems under
constitutional home rule protections. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5(b).) 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
other candidates. Plurality voting can even enable a
SB 1288
Page 18
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.
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
SB 1288
Page 19
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.
1)Plurality Vote Method and Majority Vote Method: Plurality
voting, also known as "winner-take-all" or
"first-past-the-post," gives all representation to the
candidate finishing first. In plurality voting, each voter
selects one candidate, and the candidate with the largest
number of votes is the winner regardless of whether the winner
receives a majority (50% +1) of the vote. Plurality voting
method may be used for a single candidate election or for
electing a group of candidates, such as a council or
committee. In a majority vote method a voter votes for one
candidate and the candidate with the majority (50%+1) of the
votes wins. Commonly used majority vote methods include
traditional run-off and RCV.
Current law generally provides that any candidate for a
nonpartisan office who receives a majority of votes from all
the ballots cast for a office at a primary election is elected
to that office and prohibits the office from appearing on the
ballot at the ensuing general election. Additionally,
existing law provides that if two or more candidates are
elected to a given office, the candidates that receive the
highest number of votes proceed to a general or run-off
election, as specified. Certain local jurisdictions, however,
are excluded from these provisions. Current law specifically
excludes a general law city, school district, and special
SB 1288
Page 20
district from using a majority vote primary election method
and instead only permits these jurisdictions to use a single,
plurality election method.
This bill changes this policy and instead permits a general
law city, a school district, or a district not formed for
municipal purposes to elect a candidate for nonpartisan office
at a primary election by majority vote, instead of a plurality
vote. Additionally, this bill requires a local jurisdiction
that wants to change from a plurality election method to a
majority election method to submit a proposal to the electors
of the jurisdiction at a regularly scheduled election and
requires a majority of the votes cast on the question to favor
the adoption of the proposal. Finally, if the voters approve
a change in election method, this bill requires the
jurisdiction to conduct a voter education and outreach
campaign to familiarize voters with the new election method,
as specified.
2)Ranked Choice Voting: RCV is a style of voting that allows
voters to rank a first, second and third choice candidate
instead of selecting a candidate (e.g., checking a box). RCV
includes both IRV and STV. Generally, IRV is used for
electing a single candidate and STV is used for electing
multiple candidates with proportional representation.
Under RCV, for single winner elections, if a candidate receives
a majority (50%+1) of the first-choice votes cast for that
office, that candidate will be elected. However, if no
candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes cast,
an elimination process begins. The candidate who received the
fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Next, each vote cast
for that candidate will be transferred to the voter's
next-ranked choice among the remaining candidates. This
elimination process will continue until one candidate receives
a majority and is deemed the winner.
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 21
determined according to a specific 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.
3)Charter vs. General Law Jurisdictions: Three cities and the
City and County of San Francisco have all chosen to conduct
local elections using RCV. These jurisdictions were able to
choose to use RCV 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, 121 of
California's 482 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.
Under current law the only way in which a general law city or
a general law county may conduct elections using RCV is to
become a charter jurisdiction. This bill sets up a new
mechanism that authorizes a general law city, a general law
county, and specified educational jurisdictions, with voter
approval, to conduct local elections using RCV. Specifically,
this bill requires a proposal to elect members or local
officers by RCV to only apply prospectively and prohibits RCV
from becoming operative until it is submitted to the electors
of the jurisdiction at a regularly scheduled election and a
majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption
of the proposal. In addition, if the voters approve the
change in election method, this bill requires the jurisdiction
to conduct a voter education and outreach campaign to
familiarize voters with the new election method, as specified.
4)Jurisdictions Using RCV in California: As noted by the
author, a handful of charter cities use RCV to conduct local
elections for certain local offices. Oakland, San Francisco,
SB 1288
Page 22
San Leandro, and Berkeley have all used RCV for certain local
elections.
In 2002, voters of the City of and County of San Francisco
approved a charter amendment to conduct certain local
elections by RCV. Since the approval, San Francisco has
conducted elections using RCV in almost all November general
elections from 2004 to 2015. Moreover, in 2006, voters in
Oakland approved a charter amendment to conduct local
elections using RCV and in 2010, voters in the cities of
Berkeley and San Leandro also approved charter amendments to
conduct certain local elections using RCV. Since 2010, the
cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro have conducted
elections using RCV in November 2010, November 2012, and
November 2014.
5)Lack of RCV-Capable Certified Voting Systems: There are no
voting systems currently certified for general use in
California that have the capability to tabulate ballots cast
in an RCV election. The voting system first used in San
Francisco for its elections conducted using RCV was
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 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 approved the use
of the San Francisco's voting system through December 31,
2008.
San Francisco subsequently obtained a different RCV-capable
system, but that system also was approved on a "one time"
SB 1288
Page 23
basis for the November 2008 general election and again for use
in the May 2009 statewide special election. Subsequently, San
Francisco has been granted extensions of previous approvals to
use its RCV-capable system for elections held through the
calendar years of 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Similar to San Francisco, Alameda County was also able to
conduct elections using RCV due to a series of "one time"
approvals and extensions of previous approvals. In 2009
Alameda County was granted a one time approval by the SOS to
use the same voting system that San Francisco used for the
2010 consolidated gubernatorial general election, so that
elections in the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro
could be conducted using RCV in accordance with the city
charters in those cities. In granting that approval to
Alameda County, the SOS imposed a number of conditions on
Alameda County's use of the system, including a requirement
that extensive voter education and outreach be conducted for
voters in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Again, similar
to San Francisco, Alameda County has been granted extensions
of previous approvals to use its RCV-capable system for
elections held through the calendar years of 2011 and 2012.
In 2013, based on San Francisco and Alameda counties success
in conducting multiple elections using RCV-capable voting
systems, the SOS approved use of the RCV system to both
counties. However, despite the fact that the RCV voting
system has been certified for use in both San Francisco and
Alameda counties, the use of the RCV system is limited to only
those jurisdictions. No other city or county in California
are allowed to purchase and use that system for an election in
California without separate approval by the SOS.
6)Right of Refusal: This bill permits a county elections
official, if a county board of education, school district, or
community college district authorizes the use of RCV before
that method is used in any election, to certify that the
county lacks the technological capacity to conduct elections
by RCV, as specified. Additionally, this bill requires a
SB 1288
Page 24
local jurisdiction, if a county elections official provides
the certification, as specified, to conduct its next election
in the same manner as its most recent election was conducted.
These provisions, however do not apply to general law cities
or general law counties.
On a practical level these provisions are reasonable as county
elections officials typically administer elections for
educational jurisdictions. However, county elections
officials also administer many elections for cities. If
voters of a general law city voted to approve the use of RCV
to conduct their local elections, could a county elections
official be forced to acquire new voting equipment in order to
administer the city's elections?
7)Regularly Scheduled Elections and Suggested Committee
Amendment: As mentioned above, this bill allows a general law
city, a general law county, a county board of education, a
school district, and a community college district, with voter
approval, to conduct local elections using RCV. Specifically,
this bill requires a proposal to elect members or local
officers by RCV to only apply prospectively and prohibits the
proposal from becoming operative unless it is submitted to the
electors of the jurisdiction at a regularly scheduled election
and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the
adoption of the proposal. According to the sponsors of the
bill, the intent is to require a RCV proposal to be submitted
to the jurisdiction's voters at a regularly scheduled
election, not a special election. Committee staff, however,
found a drafting error, which allows a general law city to
submit a RCV proposal to voters at a special election and
recommends amending the bill to fix the error.
8)Technical Amendments: The committee staff recommends the
following technical amendments:
On page 16, in line 28, delete the word "both."
Add Senator Hancock as a co-author.
SB 1288
Page 25
9)Arguments in Support: In support, Asian Americans Advancing
Justice - California, writes:
Under current law, general law cities and school districts
must use "first-past-the-post" voting, where the candidate
with the most votes represents everyone else even if they
received far less than majority support. Such results due
to vote splitting undermine the assurance of fairer
representation that elections by district or by trustee
area should provide.
Advancing Justice - California supports ranked choice
voting to help more voters fully participate in electing
candidates of their choice in a single, high turnout
election. For example, SB 1288 requires consolidation of
county elections with the November state general election
if ranked choice voting is used, thus avoiding lower
turnout and less representative elections in June. Bay Area
cities that switched to ranked choice voting have seen high
percentages of women and people of color being elected in
such consolidated elections. For example, in San Francisco
the 11-member Board of Supervisors went from having four
minority members before ranked choice voting to eight
today.
We also support using ranked choice voting as an
alternative to winner-take-all-elections in at-large
elections, especially when historically under represented
voters are geographically dispersed and cannot be
adequately represented by districts or by trustee areas.
SB 1288
Page 26
Allowing voters from across a district to combine their
votes and reducing the percentage of votes needed to win a
seat creates new access for racial and ethnic minority
voters and can allow their elected numbers to increase as
their share of the electorate grows.
Local jurisdictions should have access to these election
methods which better ensure elected officials are
representative of their electorates. Voters deserve options
to avoid the problems of vote splitting and spoiler
effects. A group of like-minded voters should not be
penalized just because there are a few more candidates
seeking their votes.
10)Previous Legislation: Since 2006 there have been numerous
prior bills intended to permit local jurisdictions to use RCV
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, AB 2732 (Eng) of 2010 and SB 1346 (Hancock) of 2010.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Common Cause (co-sponsor)
Californians for Electoral Reform (co-sponsor)
SB 1288
Page 27
Asian American Action Fund
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - California
Democracy for America
FairVote
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Oakland Rising
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
One Individual
Opposition
None on file.
SB 1288
Page 28
Analysis Prepared by:Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094