December 15, 2006 -- The attached Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Word documents provide details on CfER's legislative proposals for 2007. The following text is a summary.

1a. "Home rule" (or "local option") bill enabling general law jurisdictions to use ranked voting, and putting guidelines in the Elections Code, based on SB 596 introduced by State Senator Debra Bowen in the 2005-2006 session.

Charter cities and charter counties can choose whatever electoral system they want (plurality, two-round runoff, instant runoff (IRV), choice voting, cumulative voting, etc.; as well as at-large, districts, or numbered seats). General law cities are limited by current state law to plurality elections, which can be at-large, by district or from districts. General law counties are limited to two-round runoff, by district in most counties and from districts in a few counties.

Even in chartered jurisdictions, there are roadblocks to the implementation of ranked voting. Equipment vendors say they need standards for certification before they can upgrade their hardware and software. Without guidance in state law, county election officials are reluctant to conduct IRV or choice voting elections for cities that have amended their charters because these methods are not specified in the Elections Code. The current Secretary of State says he wants more chartered jurisdictions to adopt ranked voting methods before developing such guidelines.

CfER has been contacted by citizens and elected officials from general law cities and counties who are interested in moving to IRV or some form of proportional voting (e.g. choice voting or cumulative voting), but can't do so without writing a charter.

This bill would let general law cities and counties have the same freedom of choice of electoral system that charter cities and counties have, without the hassle of writing a charter. The bill would also specify the procedures for conducting elections with ranked ballots, for both single-seat (IRV) and multi-seat (choice voting) elections. SB 596 had a detailed specification in the bill itself; a possible alternative is to incorporate a published specification by reference.

Financial impact: None.

1b. Put ranked voting procedures in the Elections Code without authorizing their use in general law jurisdictions.

This proposal is, in effect, the guidelines portion of (1a) without the "home rule" provision for general law jurisdictions. Under this bill, charter cities and counties wanting to using IRV or choice voting would not have to develop their own procedures, and county election officials and equipment vendors would know how to implement ranked voting methods. General law jurisdictions would not be affected.

Financial impact: None.

1c. Direct the Secretary of State to adopt election administration uidelines and certification standards by regulation.

This an alternative to (1b). Instead of putting guidelines for ranked oting in the Elections Code, it would direct the Secretary of State to develop uniform procedures for conducting IRV and choice voting elections, and standards for certifying equipment. Jurisdictions whose charter provisions are compatible with the guidelines would find the implementation process much smoother, as would equipment vendors.

Financial impact: Minimal. (The Secretary of State would probably want to charge a portion of its budget to this bill.)

2. Mandate ranked ballots for military and overseas absentee voters when a runoff is within 90 days of the first round.

Many local jurisdictions use the two-round runoff system for their elections (if no candidate receives a majority in the first round, the top two vote-getters face each other in a second election). Also, special elections to fill legislative, Congressional, and statewide vacancies mandate a modified two-round runoff election (if no candidate receives a majority in the first round, the top vote-getter of each party participates in a second election). The time between the first and second election in these cases is often insufficient for military and overseas absentee voters to receive and return the second ballot in time for it to be counted, because of the delays involved in military and overseas mail.

Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina solve this problem by allowing military and overseas absentee voters to rank their choices on a runoff ballot that includes all the candidates. Each such voter receives two ballots, the normal primary ballot, and the special runoff ballot, and returns both prior to the first election. The normal primary ballot is counted with all the other primary ballots. If a given race requires a runoff, then after the polls close for the runoff election the special runoff ballots are examined to determine each such voter's runoff choice, and a substitute ballot is so marked that can be counted with the rest of the regular runoff ballots.

Financial impact: some increase in printing and processing the special runoff ballots, offset by savings in not needing a second mailing to military and overseas absentee voters.

Last revised February 6, 2007