Voice for Democracy

Newsletter of Californians for Electoral Reform

Fall 2005

President’s Letter

Last time I closed by saying I had run out of space to talk about San Francisco's second successful IRV election, and the slow progress towards IRV implementation in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, but would do so in the next newsletter. I want to keep that promise.

While November 8th was a statewide special election for most of us, it was a regular election day for San Francisco. The three citywide contests on the ballot were Assessor-Recorder, City Attorney, and City Treasurer. Not including write-ins, there were three candidates for Assessor-Recorder, four for Treasurer, and one for City Attorney. Voters got to rank the candidates. The incumbent City Attorney won with 98 percent of the first-choice vote (there were some write-ins) and the incumbent Treasurer won with 61 percent of the first-choice votes. In the Assessor-Recorder's race the incumbent received only 47 percent of the first-choice votes, so the IRV algorithm kicked in. The fourth-place finisher (a write-in candidate with only 18 votes) and the third-place finisher with 16 percent of the vote were eliminated, and the incumbent picked up enough of those votes to win with 58 percent of the final vote.

The remarkable thing about the election was how unremarkable it was. The voters of San Francisco have clearly embraced IRV (even if they do call it "ranked choice voting"). They saved themselves (and the candidates) an expensive runoff election, and can tend to their holiday shopping without being bombarded by mud slinging campaign literature.

The situation in Alameda County is one of those half-empty or half-full glasses, depending upon your temperament. The cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro all amended their charters to allow for IRV in some or all of their elections. Activists in Berkeley would like to see IRV implemented for their November 2006 election. The law in Oakland only applies to special elections; they expect they might have one in 2007. But all three communities would like the county to conduct their IRV elections for them, and not have to implement it themselves.

The Alameda County Acting Registrar, Elaine Ginnold, would like to accommodate her client cities, but does not want to have to implement three different versions of IRV (with different rules for breaking ties, for example). She has convened a series of meetings to hammer out a common method, or "roadmap", that all the cities would agree to. CfER has been participating in this IRV task force, along with the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, interested individuals, and official representatives of the three cities and the Board of Supervisors. That roadmap now exists, and just needs to be implemented.

But that's a big "just", at least according to some people. The state Election Code is silent on how to conduct an IRV election, and while everyone agrees that a charter city (such as San Francisco) can run its own elections by its own rules, opinions differ as to whether a county can run an election for a charter city by that city's rules, as opposed to by state rules. Unfortunately, one of those opinions is that of the Alameda County Counsel, Richard Winnie, who isn't sure that Alameda County can do this without creating legal risk. Fortunately for us, the three City Attorneys believe it can, and they are having discussions with Winnie to work this out. But this will take time.

In the meantime, Alameda County will be selecting a new election system vendor by mid-January. The official Request for Proposals made support for IRV a strong requirement, and the selected vendor will be meeting with the IRV task force in late January to go over the roadmap, to make sure that the vendor understands what is being requested, and so that the vendor can point out any "nice-to-haves" on the roadmap that might be very expensive to provide. The result of this meeting will presumably influence the contents of the final contract negotiated between the County and the vendor. Once the contract is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the vendor can implement IRV and seek certification from the Secretary of State's office. Once certified, the system can be used in IRV elections.

What's not clear is how long this will all take. Ginnold is doubtful that an IRV system would be ready in time for the November 2006 Berkeley City Council election, but November 2008 is no problem. Some people think this is acceptable, some think it is not, and the Berkeley activists are considering alternative methods of conducting an IRV election in 2006 if the County is not ready to do it.

Santa Clara County is both ahead of and behind Alameda County. The contract with the vendor already requires them to implement IRV, when the County asks for it. The Board of Supervisors has asked Registrar Jesse Durazo what that would take, and he says that he needs guidelines from the Secretary of State. (Santa Clara County hasn't developed its own roadmap, but that is something activists there might pursue.)

The Secretary of State has said that he is "considering" establishing a state-level IRV task force to draft such guidelines, but no decision will be made before the end of the year, and probably not until mid-February.

Guidelines from the Secretary of State would make things easier for Alameda County, too, as it would remove any legal doubt about it conducting IRV elections for its client cities. And that's where you come in.

We need our members to write to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to urge him to develop IRV guidelines for county election officials.  If your city or county would like to use IRV or choice voting, tell him that, too. His address is Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. (Letters carry more weight than email or phone calls.)  Please write him today, and let us know what response you get.

Finally, it is with sadness that I report the death of CfER member Forrest Crumpley from cancer on October 22nd, 2005. He was 90 years old.  Forrest did the layout and printing of CfER's newsletter in 2003 and 2004. In addition to supporting IRV and proportional voting, Forrest was a veteran (having served during World War II) and a labor activist. He is survived by his wife, his son, and his grandson. We will miss him.

Steve Chessin, President