The Latest on IRV in SF

Just passing along the updates on IRV from Steven Hill. I edited off the first part because he talks about specifics of the court case and I wasn't sure he'd want it posted on here.

From: Steven Hill, Center for Voting and Democracy
Dear Friends of IRV in San Francisco,

Below is the statement I read at the news conference last Monday
morning after we filed our suit. We had media there from KGO Ch. 7,
Channel 11, KQED, KPFA, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner,
Bay City News, Bay Guardian, SF Weekly, Sing Tao Daily, a Chinese radio
station, and more. My statement was designed to answer the critics who
have asked: "Why are you being so unreasonable? Why not wait until next
year?"

Statement from Steven Hill at the news conference following the filing
of a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco for failure to
implement instant runoff voting

"Good morning, and thank you to members of the media and the public for
attending.

"Some have asked, Why are we filing this lawsuit today against the City
and County of San Francisco? Why not do the "reasonable" thing,
and
wait until next year for IRV implementation? The answer is very simple.
The Department of Elections and the Elections Commission have had 17
months to implement instant runoff voting. Not six months, not twelve
months, but 17 months. It's been nearly a year and a half since
Proposition A was passed on March 5, 2002. We think that's enough time,
more than enough time. Furthermore, we still think IRV is doable this
November. We do not believe the Department of Elections has explored
all possible options. We believe the Department of Elections has made
several key mistakes, endangering the success of implementation.
Looking at the long list of excuses employed for not using IRV this
year, and mindful of the frequent election schedule over the next year,
including elections and potential elections in October, November,
December, March, and June which will provide more excuses to not
implement, and wary of the powerful political forces arrayed against IRV
implementation, we are not confident that we will see an IRV election
next year.

"So we are going to court to ensure that the law -- and the will of the
voters -- is upheld, and that instant runoff voting is
implemented on
schedule. My organization, the Center for Voting and Democracy, is proud
to be joined by organizations and individuals as co-plaintiffs that
represent a true cross-section of San Francisco, including the Congress
of California Seniors, Chinese Progressive Association, San Francisco
Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and the California Public Interest Research
Group (CalPIRG), and individuals Gwenn Craig, Enrique Asis, Tracy
Baxter, and Arthur Chang.

"Here's a quick recap of why we think the city should implement instant
runoff voting this year.

1. As a matter of law, December runoff elections now are illegal. The
charter amendment implementing instant runoff voting wiped out the old
part of the charter that allowed for December runoff elections. If the
City is allowed to run a December election anyway, without charter
authorization or without a judge's order, what does that say about the
power of laws and the "will of the people"? The voice of democracy
will
have suffered irreparable harm, a diminution of popular sovereignty.

2. If the City is allowed to run a December election without charter
authorization or without a judge's order, then why can't the City move
the November election back to December, and use IRV? Moving the date of
the election seems as doable to us - and better fulfills the law - than
running an illegal December runoff.

3. The gubernatorial recall election is going to put the Department of
Elections under even greater stress than usual. If it has to hold a
December runoff, that means three elections in 10 weeks and four
elections in five months. Taking one election off that calendar will
save around $4 million and allow them to focus on conducting the other
elections better.

4. All the benefits of IRV -- that caused voters to strongly pass it in
March 2002 - still hold true today. It will save taxpayers millions that
currently are wasted paying for an unnecessary second election. It is a
clear form of campaign finance reform, since candidates do not have to
raise money for a sec
ond election (also, see the excellent San Francisco
Ethics Commission resolution at http://www.fairvote.org/irv, which states
unequivocally that IRV is needed to stanch the fourfold increase in
independent expenditures that occurs during the December runoff). It
maximizes turnout in the decisive November election, particularly in
minority precincts that see disproportionate declines in voter turnout
during low-turnout December runoffs. It will more likely elect winners
who have support from the majority, AND accomplish this in one election.
It will create decrease hack-attack politics and polarizing campaigns,
since winning candidates will have incentives to build coalitions and
try and appeal to the supporters of other candidate for their number 2
ranking.

5. If IRV is abandoned this year, there is absolutely no guarantee that
it will be used next year. Director of Elections John Arntz won't give
it a thought until after next March's primary, and given what happened
this year, that makes us very nervous. We also expect opponents --
particularly the consultants and the powerful political forces who don't
like IRV for self-interested reasons -- will attempt to repeal it.

6. The City has more time to await certification of its upgraded voting
equipment than it is alleging. The equipment has been upgraded, and its
vendor, ES&S, is awaiting certification at the Secretary of State'
office. In our lawsuit we will ask the judge to determine when is the
last possible moment when the plug can be pulled on awaiting
certification of the upgraded voting machines. The recent federal ruling
on the recall bolsters our contention that the Department doesn't have
to make that decision until the third week in September. Our attorney
says that federal decision is loaded with points useful to our case,
including the stipulation by the Secretary of State and registrars of
two large counties (Los Angeles and San Diego) not to print, mail or
distribute any ballots or instructions on the recall voting procedures
until August 20 -- for an O
ct. 7 election! This arms us with a powerful
example of how rapidly elections materials and procedures can be altered
up to a point reasonably close to an election. The analogous date for a
November 4th election would be the third week in September. And that
would give the ES&S application time to be certified by the Secretary of
State.

7. But the Department of Elections does not need to wait for the
Secretary of State to implement instant runoff voting. We have another
ready alternative. It is called a "hand count," conducted on paper
ballots. Britain, Ireland and Australia have run IRV hand-counts for
many decades. Let me be clear: I am NOT talking about the "John Arntz
method," the so-called "partial hand count" that was projected
to cost
$2.3 million and could not guarantee election results in 28 days, and
consequently was denied certification by the Secretary of State. I'm
talking about a low-tech solution, but a real solution. A firm with
years of experience in conducting IRV hand-counts has forwarded to the
Department of Elections a sound proposal. This firm would run a hand
count of IRV ballots and produce election results in TWO days - not 28
-- and for little more than $250,000. That's a tenth of the cost of the
"John Arntz method," and a fraction of the $4 million cost of a second
citywide election in December. Moreover, because this method does not
involve the use of voting equipment, it does not require certification
by the Secretary of State, since the Secretary's certification process
only applies to equipment and machines.

8. Voters in other places again and again have demonstrated that simply
numbering candidates is a very easy task. Ranked ballots have resulted
in extremely low rates of ballot spoilage, attesting to the ease of use
for voters. In fact, paper ballot systems often have lower voter error
rates than voting machines. When Ann Arbor, Michigan used instant runoff
voting on traditional paper ballots in 1975, just a few months after its
adoption by voters in November 1974, voter
error declined sharply, from
2.3% to 1.2%. New York's local school board elections using ranked
ballots not only have produced more representation for minority
communities than any other election in New York, but there has been a
lower rate of voter error for those elections than in the presidential
election. Internationally, instant runoff voting is used to elect the
president of Ireland and a similar ranked choice system is used to elect
the parliament of Malta. In both elections, a paper ranked ballot is
used, and the rate of invalid ballots is typically less than 1.0%, well
below the national error rate of more than 2% in the American
presidential election in 2000.

9. We have a strong legal case. A low-tech solution for a hand count
using paper ballots does not require certification by the Secretary of
State, and there's plenty of time to implement it by November 4. IRV is
the law, December runoffs are not. Charter cities have broad discretion
under California law and the California Constitution to change their
charter and decide local election matters for themselves. And an IRV
election in November will make the Department of Elections' job EASIER,
not more difficult, since they can outsource the ballot-counting under a
pure hand count plan to the other firm, and they will no longer have to
start planning for a December election in September. They can enjoy
their holidays for a change.

"In short, instant runoff voting for this November is doable, legal, and
desirable. It upholds the will of the voters, which desires to get rid
of December elections and use instant runoff voting to elect local
offices. We have a top-notch lawyer to make our arguments in court.
Lowell Finley is an experienced election law attorney, and now, I turn
you over to him to answer any legal questions that you might have."

Steven Hill
Center for Voting and Democracy
San Francisco Bay Guardian

Barely alive: Only the courts can save IRV now that Arntz has declared it dead and the commission prepares to pull the trigger.
By Alex Posorske and Steven T. Jones
August 13, 2003

When city Department of Elections director John Arntz declared instant-runoff voting dead for this year, IRV opponents and the city's daily newspapers were quick to sign off on the death certificate. Anti-IRV forces on the city's Elections Commission then attempted to validate Arntz's decision during a rancorous Aug. 6 meeting, but the body deadlocked with a 3-3 vote.

While IRV - also known as ranked-choice voting - barely clings to life, there are still maneuvers taking place that could revive it for the fall ballot, as voters mandated when they approved Measure A last year. The Center for Voting and Democracy on Aug. 11 filed a lawsuit to compel IRV's implementation. San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren will hear the case Aug. 20, just hours before the Elections Commission is set to reconsider the matter.

CVD's Steven Hill said he expects the court to decide that afternoon whether to order the city to implement IRV. The lawsuit argues that Arntz had no legal basis to declare IRV dead since two vote-counting methods are still on the table: an electronic method that could be certified by the state by mid-September and the hand-counting system of a British firm that the city has not officially considered.

Hill said the firm's hand-counting system could give election results within two days, and the method would not be dependent on Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's approval since it would not be considered a "voting system" that needs state approval, although City Attorney Dennis Hererra has opined that even hand counts need state approval.

The most vocal opponents of IRV have been centrist Democrats aligned with Mayor Willie Brown and mayoral hopeful Gavin Newsom, who could benefit from a divided progressive field. That political reasoning got even stronger when progressive Sup. Matt Gonzalez jumped into the mayor's race Aug. 8.

While confident of his chances even without IRV, Gonzalez told the Bay Guardian he's bothered by foot-dragging in the Secretary of State's Office: "I don't think they've taken the steps they could to make this happen."

Joe Taggard of city elections vendor Election Systems and Software told the Bay Guardian on Aug. 6 that he had just sent the state the final elements of his company's application, but a Shelley spokesperson told us Aug. 11 (finally returning several calls just before press time), "We have not received any vendor application," which Taggard called "ridiculous."

So IRV's fate now rests with the courts and with the Elections Commission, whose Aug. 6 deadlock (with one commissioner, Robert Kenealey, who isn't considered a supporter of IRV, absent) did not qualify as a ringing endorsement of Arntz. At least two committee members were upset by the new stand of the previously neutral Arntz, and one, Richard Shadoian, lit into Arntz at the meeting, questioning whether he had the power to declare IRV dead.

"We are going to tell you what to do," Shadoian angrily said to Arnst. "I think you've gone way over your rights to do something like this."

But commission president Alix Rosenthal, who has been publicly doubtful about the wisdom of implementing IRV this year, favors letting Arntz's decision stand.

The Elections Commission meets Aug. 20, 7 p.m., City Hall, Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/news_irv.html

S.F., crucible for democracy
By Krist Novoselic
August 13, 2003

I FIRST BECAME interested in electoral reform with my work on music issues in Washington state. One of the goals of that work was to mobilize a constituency. And through all of my efforts I've found that the problem with people not participating in our democracy comes down to one thing: our electoral system discourages people.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/x_oped.html