Legislation that would allow all cities, counties and districts to adopt ranked voting is alive in the state legislature.

State Senator Debra Bowen (D-28) introduced SB 596 on February 18.  CfER worked closely with her and her staff to craft the language in the bill, and is working statewide to promote its passage.

SB 596 would allow any city, county, or school or special district to use either instant runoff voting (IRV) or choice voting (CV)--collectively referred to as "ranked voting"--to elect its governing board, mayor, district attorney, and other officials.  It also defines how IRV and CV ballots are counted, so even charter cities and charter counties, which can already adopt IRV and CV by charter amendment, could just refer to state law rather than defining these methods for themselves.

Under current law, general law cities and counties that want to use ranked voting have to adopt charters to do so (see the report on Davis elsewhere in this issue).

SB 596 has been endorsed by numerous organizations, including California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California, the National Organization for Women, and the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG).  Election reform and voting rights organizations supporting the bill include FairVote - The Center for Voting and Democracy, Davis Citizens for Representation, Santa Monica Ranked Voting, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and the Greenlining Institute.

Democratic party organizations that have endorsed the bill so far include Democracy for America (DFA), California for Democracy, the San Mateo Democratic Central Committee, and United Democrats of El Dorado County.  The state Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and Global Exchange also support the bill.

The San Jose Mercury News endorsed SB 596 in a March 31 editorial.

On April 6, the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, which Senator Bowen chairs, held a hearing on the bill.  CfER members Rob Dickinson, Chris Jerdonek, Chuck O’Neil and I testified.  Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, and Yolo County Clerk-Recorder 

Freddie Oakley, also spoke in support.

The only testimony against the bill was by the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO), which didn’t want counties lacking compatible equipment to have to count ballots for ranked voting elections.  CACEO offered to drop its opposition if cities and districts were required to count their own ballots in this situation.  This position is a lot narrower than CACEO’s opposition in AB 1039, the predecessor to SB 596 in the 2003-2004 legislative session.

More serious opposition came from two members of the Elections Committee itself.  Senators Kevin Murray (D-26) and Gloria Romero (D-24) spoke vehemently against the bill.  While Murray allowed that CV is better than at-large plurality, he seemed to think single-member districts are better than CV.  He also said both IRV and CV are  "complicated" (despite San Francisco's successful election), and that IRV would hurt women and minorities.

Romero was concerned about the pre-election "deal-making" IRV would supposedly engender (never mind that two-round runoff encourages deal-making between the first and second elections), and also concerned that these systems would hurt women and minorities.

Because of time constraints, we weren't able to respond to the litany of issues raised by Murray and Romero.  We have asked for a meeting with Murray, and spoke afterwards with a member of Romero's staff.  We've also identified groups we need to endorse SB 596 that will help soften their opposition.

There may, however, be a deeper reason for Murray and Romero’s opposition.  Both began their legislative careers with hotly contested primaries, where each won with less than a majority of the vote. (Murray won a nine-way primary, with five "viable" candidates, with 21% of the vote.  Romero won a five-way primary, with three "viable" candidates, with 38% of the vote.)  Both think they would not have won had those elections been conducted under IRV.  Unless we can convince them otherwise, they may never support SB 596.

SB 596 is now a two-year bill, so we have until January 2006 to get them to change their minds.

Senator Bowen also plans to hold one or two informational hearings on IRV, either this summer or in late September.  The hearing or hearings would take place either in San Francisco, Sacramento, or one in each location.  This will be an opportunity to discuss the need for SB 596.

I want to stress that we've gotten a lot further with SB 596 so far than we did with AB 1039 two years ago.  AB 1039 never even had a hearing, and was abandoned by its author when the votes weren't there.  SB 596 has had a hearing, and the author has not withdrawn it.

Sometimes it takes three or four tries before a bill eventually passes, and we're only on our second attempt.  So I'm not discouraged, and I hope you aren't either.

To join CfER, or renew your membership, please visit

https://www.cfer.org/join