BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1288
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1288
(Leno) - As Amended August 1, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill:
1)Allows a general law city, a school district, or a special
SB 1288
Page 2
district 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
electing officials using a single, plurality election. Prior
to adopting this change, the proposal would have to be
submitted to the electors of the jurisdiction at a regularly
scheduled election and would become operative only if a
majority of votes cast favor adoption of the proposal.
2)Allows a general law city, a general law county, county board
of education, school district, or community college district,
upon voter approval, to conduct a local election using ranked
choice voting (RCV), as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Any costs to cities and counties to procure and obtain
certification of an election system with RCV capability and to
conduct voter education and outreach on RCV would be
significant, but would be nonreimbursable, as the bill is
permissible.
2)Minor one-time costs of $40,000 to the Secretary of State
(SOS) for RCV regulations. The SOS has already developed
guidelines for the handful of jurisdictions currently
conducting RCV.
COMMENTS:
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
SB 1288
Page 3
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. 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 specifically excludes a general law city, school
district, and special district from using a majority vote
primary election method and instead only permits these
jurisdictions to use a single, plurality election method. This
bill allows these jurisdictions to elect a candidate for
nonpartisan office majority vote, instead of a plurality vote,
if such a change is first approved by the jurisdiction's
voters.
The author identifies drawbacks with plurality voting: that a
candidate elected by plurality may not be a true
"representative" of that area, as a majority of the electorate
voted for other candidates; candidates elected by plurality
may enter office with a weak mandate, harming their ability to
govern; 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.
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).
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.
SB 1288
Page 4
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 with RCV capability
first used by San Francisco in 2004 was conditionally approved
by the SOS on a one-time basis. The city received approval to
use the system again in 2006 and to use a new RCV system for
subsequent elections. Alameda County (for the Cities of
Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro) was also granted approval
to use this system in elections since 2010.
The three cities and the City and County of San Francisco were
able to choose to use RCV because they are charter cities,
which under the state Constitution these entities are allowed
to exercise a greater degree of control over local affairs.
The RCV option is currently not available to general law
cities and counties.
According to the author, "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."
3)Prior Legislation. Since 2006, these bills intended to permit
local jurisdictions to use RCV for either regular or special
elections either failed passage in the Legislature or were
vetoed: 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.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 1288
Page 5