Urge Assembly Elections Committee to pass AB 1121

Californians for Electoral Reform

Take Action Today: Support Key Electoral Reform Legislation in California

AB 1121 -- Davis -- Local Option for Ranked Voting

In February, Assembly Member Mike Davis introduced AB 1121, legislation to give a limited number of local governments (i.e. cities and counties) the option to use instant runoff voting (IRV) and choice voting to elect their representatives. Choice voting is a similar ranked system as instant runoff voting, only designed to work when electing multiple winners, such as for a city council. Charter jurisdictions already have the opportunity to use these improved electoral systems, but three-fourths of all California cities and counties are "general law" jurisdictions and are not able to use these systems. AB 1121 would begin to address this by allowing up to a maximum of 10 general law cities or counties to use ranked voting. This bill would not affect charter jurisdictions.

Please contact members of the California Assembly Elections Committee to urge support for AB 1121

We need your help now to move this key electoral reform legislation in the California Assembly. We need you to contact the members of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee, and urge their support AB 1121 when the bill is heard in committee on April 21st. You can call, fax, email, or send a postal lette Written comments, especially handwritten letters, have the greatest impact, but do whatever works for you. But do it soon, as the hearing is on April 21st. For more information, see Background or Talking Points or Supporters below.

California Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee

Assembly Member Paul Fong
Chair, Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0022
Email: Assemblymember.Fong@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2022
Fax: (916) 319-2122
Assembly Member Anthony Adams
Vice Chair, Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059
Email: Assemblymember.Adams@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2059
Fax: (916) 319-2159
Assembly Member Bill Berryhill
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0026
Email: assemblymember.bill.berryhill@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2026
Fax: (916) 319-2126
Assembly Member Joe Coto
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0023
Email: Assemblymember.Coto@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2023
Fax: (916) 319-2123

Assembly Member Tony Mendoza
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0056
Email: Assemblymember.Mendoza@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2056
Fax: (916) 319-2156

Speaker Pro Tempore Lori Saldana
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0076
Email: Assemblymember.Saldana@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2076
Fax: (916) 319-2176
Assembly Member Sandre Swanson
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0016
Email: Assemblymember.Swanson@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2016
Fax: (916) 319-2116

If you can only write one letter, please write to Assembly Member Fong, the Chair of Assembly Elections. Better still, contact all five members of the committee AND send a separate note to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (contact information below) urging her support for the bill.

Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0047
Email: Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2047
Fax: (916) 319-2147

BACKGROUND

AB 1121, introduced by Assembly Member Davis (D-48), would allow a small number of general law cities and counties to use ranked voting systems to elect their representatives. The bill would allow these jurisdictions to use instant runoff voting for single-winner elections or choice voting (a ranked voting system similar to IRV) for multiple-winner elections. It would also add to the state Elections Code the guidelines and procedures that registrars and equipment vendors need to count and report ranked voting elections.

This bill is important in that most local jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems under current law, regardless of the wishes of the governing body of those jurisdictions or the wishes of a majority of voters in those jurisdictions. Today only charter counties or charter cities can use IRV, but over three-fourths of cities and counties are general law jurisdictions and don't have these options. Over half of Californians live in a general law city, a general law county, or both. AB 1121 would allow up to a maximum of 10 general law cities or counties to use these systems, subject to voter approval.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner of a single-winner election has the support of the majority of voters in a single election. By eliminating the need for a costly runoff election it saves local governments a lot of money -- about $1.6M per election in San Francisco alone. IRV also eliminates vote-splitting and spoiler effects, both of which undermine the public's confidence in the political process. Finally, IRV helps promote positive, issue-based campaigns with less negative campaigning because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes in addition to 1st choice votes.

San Francisco has used Instant Runoff Voting extremely successfully for five consecutive elections, and all academic and survey research shows that the results have been excellent. San Francisco voters understood IRV extremely well, used it effectively, and overwhelmingly prefer it to the old two-round runoff system that they had used for decades. Similar positive results have been seen in other cities, such as Cary (NC), Hendersonville (NC), Burlington (VT), Takoma Park (MD).

TALKING POINTS FOR AB 1121:

1) IRV has an extremely successful track record where it has been used.

Surveys of voters performed in Cary, NC; Hendersonville NC ; Burlington VT ; San Francisco, CA, and Takoma Park, MD all showed that voters overwhelmingly understood ranked voting, with responses of good understanding being 95%, 86%, 89%, 87%, and 88%. In those same cities, voters also expressed a strong preference for using ranked voting over their old systems, with 72%, 71%, 78%, 82%, and 89%, respectively, preferring instant runoff voting over their old system. All of the available research and surveys of the usage of IRV in San Francisco support the fact that every single demographic in the city -- defined by where they live and their race, age, gender, party and political philosophy -- preferred IRV to the old runoff system. Additionally, voters two-to-one perceived the instant runoff voting system as more fair than the prior two-round runoff system. So from the standpoint of voter acceptance, ranked voting has proven exceptional in the cities that are using it. And in addition to this usage in the U.S., over 25 million people worldwide use IRV and have done so for many decades, showing that this is not something on the bleeding edge, but rather a proven system gaining acceptance in California and across the nation. And while we do think these systems are preferable in many ways to the systems in place in most jurisdictions, the bill does not seek to implement them in all jurisdictions. We are simply arguing that these systems have shown themselves to be worthy of at least being an option for general law jurisdictions, just like they are for charter jurisdictions. This bill only allows 10 cities or counties to use ranked voting as a means of gaining more experience to better inform future policy choices.

2) IRV can lead to dramatic improvements in voter participation.

There is a potential for dramatic improvement in voter turnout as a result of using ranked voting, especially among minority communities. San Francisco saw an estimated effective tripling of voter participation overall as a result of using ranked voting (and being able to combine two elections into a single election), and as much as a quadrupling of turnout among minority and low-income neighborhoods. Significant improvements seem likely in other jurisdictions as well, and also for local elections which coincide with the statewide primary and general elections. For an analysis of how IRV led to significant improvements in voter turnout in San Francisco, see: http://www.sfrcv.org/reports/turnout.pdf

3) IRV can save local governments considerable money.

There is a significant potential for cost savings by eliminating the need for expensive runoff elections, often elections with single-digit voter turnout. San Francisco alone saves around $1.6 million per election, which is real money when we are talking about local government budgets. In Los Angeles, they had a series of local runoff elections that cost $5 million dollars and only had 6% voter turnout.

4) Cities and counties deserve the opportunity to use the electoral systems that best address their unique needs.

Currently, only charter cities have this opportunity, and it should be extended to all local governments. Giving general law jurisdictions the right to improve their election procedures would open up valuable new opportunities for them to achieve more representative democracy and better government. Allowing local jurisdictions to demonstrate improvements to their electoral processes allows the whole state to benefit and see what works best.

5) Our current voting systems suffer from a variety of deficits, including vote splitting and spoiler effects, and unequal representation. Spoiler and vote splitting effects can allow a candidate to be elected where the majority of people would prefer a different candidate. Our winner-take-all electoral systems ensure that a significant percentage of the population is denied representation, and this ultimately undermines the political system. In particular, minority communities suffer the most, and the Choice Voting system allowed by this legislation provides for much greater opportunities for representation than are afforded under our current at-large winner-take-all systems.

6) The lack of uniform election code support for these improved electoral systems is a significant obstacle to cities and counties and other jurisdictions that want to use these systems, and AB 1121 addresses this need. In addition, City and County officials and/or local Registrars are not put in the difficult positions of having to make up such procedures themselves.

7) Ranked voting is broadly supported.

See the partial list below of organizations and individuals that supported AB 1294, a prior bill on this subject that would have given the option to use ranked voting to all cities and counties in CA.

SUPPORTERS OF AB 1121:

Support letters for AB 112 are just beginning to be submitted to the CA legislature. We hope to see AB 1121 include similar support as that listed below for AB 1294.

Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
California Common Cause
FairVote -- the Center for Voting and Democracy
Marin Ranked Voting
New America Foundation
Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Mateo County (in process)
California League of Women Voters (in process)
California Public Interest Research Group
League of California Cities (in process)

SUPPORTERS OF AB 1294 (a similar bill from the last session) INCLUDED:

Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
California Common Cause
California League of Women Voters
California Public Interest Research Group
City Clerks Association of California
City of Davis, CA
City of Fort Bragg
Community Development Institute of East Palo Alto
Davis Choice Voting
Democracy for America
FairVote -- the Center for Voting and Democracy
Greenlining Institute
Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica
Latino Voters League
Latinos for America
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)
New America Foundation
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP)
Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Mateo County
William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI)
Yolo County Registrar of Voters Freddie Oakley