[Sosfbay-discuss] Action Needed Today To Support Key Electoral Reform Legislation in CA Assembly
Jim Stauffer
jims at greens.org
Thu May 7 16:26:07 PDT 2009
At the monthly meeting last night we had a brief presentation on implementing IRV
from Blair Bobier of the New America Foundation. In addition to updating us on the
status of Santa Clara's nascent IRV exploration, he encouraged us all to write to
the Assembly regarding AB 1121.
Here's the action alert from Californians for Electoral Reform with all the details.
Jim
=======================================================================
ACTION NEEDED TODAY TO SUPPORT KEY ELECTORAL REFORM LEGISLATION IN CA ASSEMBLY
TAKE ACTION TODAY: SUPPORT KEY ELECTORAL REFORM LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA
AB 1121 -- Davis -- Local Option for Ranked Voting
PLEASE CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO URGE
SUPPORT FOR AB 1121
Your help is needed now to move key electoral reform legislation in the California
Assembly. 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 ranked system similar to 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
jurisdictons.
PLEASE CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO URGE
SUPPORT FOR AB 1121
We need your help to move this legislation in the Assembly. We need you to
contact the members of the Assembly Appropriations, and urge their support
AB 1121 when the bill is heard in committee on May 13th. You can call, fax, email,
or send
a postal letter. Written comments, especially handwritten letters, have the
greatest impact, but do whatever works for you. But do it soon, as the hearing is
on May 13th. For more information, see Background
or Talking Points or Supporters below.
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
Assembly Member Kevin de Leon (D-45)
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0045
Email: Assemblymember.deLeon at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2045
Fax: (916) 319-2145
Assembly Member Jim Nielsen (R-02)
Vice Chair, Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0002
Email: Assemblymember.Nielsen at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102
Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Email: Assemblymember.Ammiano at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2013
Fax: (916) 319-2113
Assembly Member Charles Calderon (D-58)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0058
Email: Assemblymember.Calderon at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2058
Fax: (916) 319-2158
Assembly Member Mike Davis (D-48) — Author of AB 1121 – No need to contact,
except for "thank you" contacts
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0048
Email: Assemblymember.Davis at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2048
Fax: (916) 319-2148
Assembly Member Michael Duvall (R-72)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0072
Email: Assemblymember.Duvall at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2072
Fax: (916) 319-2172
Assembly Member Felipe Fuentes (D-39)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039
Email: Assemblymember.Fuentes at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2039
Fax: (916) 319-2139
Assembly Member Isadore Hall III (D-52)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0052
Email: Assemblymember.Hall at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2052
Fax: (916) 319-2152
Assembly Member Diane Harkey (R-73)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0073
Email: Assemblymember.Harkey at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2073
Fax: (916) 319-2173
Assembly Member Dave Jones (D-09)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0009
Email: Assemblymember.Jones at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2009
Fax: (916) 319-2109
Assembly Member Jeff Miller (R-71)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0076
Email: Assemblymember.Miller at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2071
Fax: (916) 319-2171
Assembly Member John Pérez (D-46)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0046
Email: Assemblymember.John.Perez at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2046
Fax: (916) 319-2146
Assembly Member Curren D. Price Jr. (D-51)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0051
Email: Assemblymember.Price at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2051
Fax: (916) 319-2151
Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Email: Assemblymember.Skinner at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114
Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-69)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Email: Assemblymember.Solorio at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169
Assembly Member Audra Strickland (R-37)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0037
Email: Assemblymember.Strickland at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2037
Fax: (916) 319-2137
Assembly Member Tom Torlakson (D-11)
Postal: California State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0011
Email: Assemblymember.Torlakson at assembly.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 319-2011
Fax: (916) 319-2111
If you can only write one letter, please write to Assembly Member Kevin De Leon,
the Chair of Assembly Appropriations. Better still, contact all 17 members
of the committee. If any member of the committee is your own local Assembly
Member, please make it a top priority to contact that member.
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).
Given the momentum for ranked voting building around the country — including
Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, Santa Clara County, Davis, Burlington (VT),
Memphis (TN), Telluride (CO), Santa Fe (NM), Sarasota (FL), Aspen (CO), Minneapolis
(MN), Pierce County (WA), Ferndale (MI), and Vancouver (WA) — this bill comes
at an excellent time.
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.
The current list of supporters for AB 1121 includes:
- Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
- Secretary of State Debra Bowen
- California Common Cause
- FairVote – the Center for Voting and Democracy
- New America Foundation
- Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Mateo
County
- California League of Women Voters
- California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)
- League of California Cities
- Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
- Marin Ranked Voting
- City of Menlo Park
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 Peace and Freedom Party
- California Public Interest Research Group
- City Clerks Association of California
- City of Davis, CA
- City of Fort Bragg, CA
- Community Development Institute of East Palo Alto
- Davis Choice Voting
- Democracy for America
- FairVote ñ 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
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list