The Political Reform Blog
All recent posts are listed below; click on any headline for the complete text of that item.
Voting Reform Advances in California Legislature
On April 21, the California Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee passed AB 1121, a bill authorizing a limited number of general law cities and counties the option of using ranked voting systems, such as Instant Runoff Voting. On that same day, the Menlo Park City Council voted 5-0 to support the bill.
Current California law prohibits general law jurisdictions-those without their own charters-from using these types of voting systems. Charter cities, such as San Francisco, which uses IRV, and San Jose, which is considering it, are free to change their election methods.
AB 1121 would establish a pilot program, allowing a total of 10 cities and counties to use ranked voting as part of this limited authorization. Municipalities could participate in the pilot program by action of their governing body. In order to use ranked voting, these cities or counties would also need to obtain the approval of their voters.
AB 1121 is similar to a bill from the last legislative session, AB 1294, which was passed by both houses of the Legislature and sent to the Governor, who later vetoed it. The current bill has narrowed the scope of the earlier legislation, addressing the Governor's specific concerns, in the hopes that it will now gain the Governor's support.
At the time of the hearing, a number of organizations and community leaders had expressed support for AB 1121, including:
A Good Week for Political Reform
From San Jose to Sacramento, efforts at political reform are taking off. On Thursday night, the Santa Clara County Democrats gave thumbs-up to two Instant Runoff Voting resolutions. Since the Dems are the county's overwhelmingly predominant political party, this is a major step forward for the use of IRV in the South Bay.
The two resolutions call for using IRV for elections in Santa Clara County and in San Jose, the county's largest city. County voters long ago approved a charter amendment allowing the use of IRV; now it's up to the Board of Supervisors to do their part and act on the will of the voters. The Dems' first resolution "urges the Board of Supervisors to authorize the use of Instant Runoff Voting for county elections."
Before San Jose can use IRV it must also change its charter. That's why the Dems' second resolution urges the city council "to place a charter amendment before city voters that replaces San Jose's unnecessary and expensive two round runoff elections with instant runoff voting."
While there are obviously a number of ducks that need to be lined up before either San Jose or Santa Clara County start using IRV, the adoption of these two resolutions by the county's predominant political party, along with the support of good government groups like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, greatly enhances the prospects for IRV in the South Bay.
Runaway, Budget-Busting Runoffs
By Gautam Dutta and CA Assemblymember Ted W. Lieu
This year, California state and local governments will spend close to $10 million on at least three elections we do not need. That makes no sense amidst California’s and our nation’s brutal recession.
Here’s the root of the problem. On March 24, 2009 barely 6 percent of registered voters showed up for a special election to fill a vacancy for California’s 26th Senate District. In an area with almost 1 million residents and 400,000 registered voters, only 23,000 civic-minded citizens decided who would replace former State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (newly elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors).
How much did this special election cost? A whopping $2.2 million of our tax dollars – nearly $100 per voter – according to the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder / County Clerk.
Unfortunately, we’re not even close to being finished. Since no candidate won a majority, we must hold a second election that will cost even more money. Because this is a heavily Democratic district, it is certain the Democratic nominee, Assemblymember Curren Price, will win. Yet Mr. Price must wait two months for a second election before he can be sworn in as State Senator.
Far from being “special”, special runoff elections cost millions of tax dollars to administer — at a time when governments have been forced to lay off schoolteachers and workers.
L.A. County to Study Instant Runoff Voting
The Los Angeles County supervisors voted today to study whether the county can save time and money by using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). With today's vote, the county joins the city of Los Angeles, as well as San Jose, Pasadena and Long Beach, as jurisdictions that are looking at IRV as a solution for expensive, no show elections. The supervisors unanimously approved the motion by Mark Ridley-Thomas to study IRV, which earned the support of the California-based Courage Campaign.
Oakland and Berkeley, which have previously approved the use of IRV, will begin using this innovative electoral method in 2010.
Constitutional Convention: What History Teaches
from the Sacramento Bee, www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1717487.html
A constitutional convention has been proposed by some California business leaders as a vehicle to fix the Golden State's deeply entrenched political and economic woes. While a convention offers the hope of a new beginning, it also inspires understandable fear that hard won rights may get trampled in the horse-trading. The state's leadership in recent years has hardly inspired confidence. Why should we imagine that it could match the brilliance of James Madison, George Washington and the other Founders, and chart a new course for our state?
The first thing to recognize is that the Founders were not as brilliant as the mythmakers would have us believe. Their initial design of government -- the Articles of Confederation -- was a timid attempt at national governance, more dysfunctional than California's government today. To their credit, once they realized their design had faltered, they were bold enough not merely to tinker around the edges. They had the courage to fix their eyes on a new horizon, completely redesigning their existing governmental structures to create Version 2.0, which became an inspiration to the world.
Study shows "top two" could elect more extremists, not moderates
Here is some brand new analysis from Washington state results that might shed light on the efficacy of the top two primary, which many are promoting as a good thing for CA. It is especially directed at whether the top two would elect more moderates -- or more extremists? This evidence below suggests it's a bit of a crapshoot, the top two primary could as easily elect more extremists as elect more moderates.
In taking a look at official WA state election results at http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx? for last year's primary, you can see there are basically four categories of results for the 98 house races and 25 senate races.
In the first category, which has by far the vast majority of races, one candidate (usually an incumbent) is either uncontested or is so far in the lead with anywhere from 53 percent to over 70 percent of the vote and a huge enough lead that it's obvious they will win in the general (November) election as well. That includes 24 races uncontested in the primary, and 3 with only token write-in opposition. The practical impact in those races is no different from what we have now in CA, as I outlined recently in my Los Angeles Times oped.
Runaway Runoffs
Only 13 percent voted in yesterday’s Los Angeles elections – an all-time low for voter turnout in a Los Angeles mayoral election. But the endless cycle of elections is not yet over. Already, we have asked Angelenos to vote four times in little more than a year. To add insult to injury, residents of South Los Angeles will probably be asked to vote four more times between now and Halloween!
Angelenos have had it with too many elections – and they’re voting with their feet. In 2007, only 6 percent of voters showed up for the Los Angeles runoff election. We needlessly run two-round elections when one round would suffice, and these elections occur at inconvenient times.
Fortunately, there’s a better way: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This way, voters could elect a majority winner in only one election, by ranking their choices (1-2-3). What’s more, Los Angeles taxpayers would save $8 to $9 million per election.
Several leaders who won last night have endorsed IRV: Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, Councilmember Ed Reyes, Council President Eric Garcetti, Controller-Elect Wendy Greuel, School Board President Monica Garcia, and Community College District President Kelly Candaele.
L.A.'s Broken Elections
On Tuesday, Los Angeles reached a new, all-time low for voter turnout in a mayoral election. Contrary to the claim in a L.A. Times editorial that the abysmally low voter turnout was not "bottom scraping," the thirteen percent turnout was in fact as bottom of the barrel as it gets. Sure, it could get lower-but it hasn't before.
"Bottom scraping" or not, thirteen percent voter turnout for a mayoral election is hardly cause for civic celebration.
The old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Well, L.A.'s elections are "broke," but they're in good company. California is broke, and so is L.A.
Instead of running a seemingly endless series of expensive elections that the city can't afford and no one shows up for, how about trying something different? That something different is Instant Runoff Voting.
L.A. requires runoff elections to ensure that a candidate is elected with a majority of the vote. Historically, that has meant two separate elections held months apart. The problem, of course, is that each election costs something in the neighborhood of $8 million and voter participation drops precipitously for the second election. In 2007, for example, only six percent of voters participated in L.A.'s runoff election. By using Instant Runoff Voting, L.A. could combine two rounds of elections into one, saving millions of dollars and increasing voter turnout in the process.
Taking the politics out of title and summary
Joe Mathews is right: the way California lets politicians, whether the attorney general or the Legislature, put their thumbs on the scale by writing cagey or misleading titles and summaries for ballot measures invites dishonesty and abuse, as with Proposition 1A on the May special election ballot.The state needs an independent ballot title process carried out, as he says, by non-politicians.
Here’s how it might work:
When a measure for the ballot is submitted to the state, the secretary of state would ask the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to prepare a list of up to ten multiple-choice questions about its major provisions and effects.
She would then send a staff member to a randomly selected place in the state. The staffer would offer $1,000 apiece to the first three registered voters he meets on the street if they would agree to sit together and write the title and summary of the measure. They would have one hour to read the measure and write a title and summary. All three would have to agree on the wording. If they could not perform that task by consensus, the measure would be returned to the proponent for rewriting.
The Call of a Constitutional Convention
My old friend Bill Cavala has metamorphosed into such a creature of the Legislature –– “a veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento,” his blog taxonomy trumpets –– that the only explanation he can muster for those who believe Californians can bypass the Capitol to call a constitutional convention is that the reformers are “slow.”
It’s an odd charge coming from someone 98 years behind the times.
According to Cavala, the only legal path to a convention leads through the Legislature. Against all the lawyers who have opined that voters can give themselves the authority to put a convention call on the ballot, a power currently reserved to the Legislature, Cavala offers up the uncited authority of Joe Remcho, the famous political lawyer. Remcho, alas, is no longer around to tell us that approach would be struck down by the California Supreme Court as an impermissible “revision” of the constitution.
Not being a lawyer, I won’t join Cavala in making firm predictions about how the court would rule on that question. But as a historian and a long-time watcher of California politics and law, I do feel comfortable pointing out that, when the voters have horned in on the Legislature’s powers, the courts have almost always looked the other way.
Map & Directions • Additional Contact Info
