BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1288|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1288
Author: Leno (D), et al.
Amended: 8/1/16
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
SENATE FLOOR: 24-12, 5/23/16
AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara,
Leno, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth,
Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Liu, Mendoza, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-26, 8/18/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Elections: local voting methods
SOURCE: California Common Cause
Californians for Electoral Reform
DIGEST: This bill 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
SB 1288
Page 2
nonpartisan office at a primary election by majority vote,
instead of a plurality vote, as specified.
Assembly Amendments add coauthors and provide that an ordinance
establishing RCV voting shall not become operative unless it is
approved by the electors of the city at a regularly scheduled
election.
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
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)Allows a general law city, a school district, and a district
not formed for municipal purposes to require a candidate for
SB 1288
Page 3
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, as specified.
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.
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.
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,
as specified.
5)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.
6)Requires an elections official to publish and post tabulation
reports, as specified.
7)Makes other corresponding and technical changes.
Background
So How Does this System Work? RCV 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
SB 1288
Page 4
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)
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
SB 1288
Page 5
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 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 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.
SB 1288
Page 6
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.
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 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, 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
SB 1288
Page 7
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
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.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/19/16)
California Common Cause (co-source)
Californians for Electoral Reform (co-source)
Asian American Action Fund
Asian American Advancing Justice- California
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: (Verified8/19/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-26, 8/18/16
AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Daly, Eggman,
SB 1288
Page 8
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine,
Lopez, Low, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Olsen,
Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bigelow, Brough,
Chávez, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Dodd, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Hadley, Harper, Jones, Lackey, Linder, Mathis, Melendez,
Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner,
Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Frazier, Gallagher, Roger Hernández,
Kim, Maienschein
Prepared by:Darren Chesin / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
8/19/16 19:37:24
**** END ****