-dity OF Los ANGELE_! CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 KAREN E. KALFAYAN CITY CLERK HOLLY L. WOLCOTT EXECUTIVE OFFICER -dity OF Los ANGELE_! CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROOM360, CITY HALL LOS ANGELES, CA (213) FAX (213) ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR Room 360 City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA Honorable Members: In response to two motions recently introduced regarding Instant Runoff Voting (Huizar- Rosendahl, CF' S1; Rosendahl-Huizar-Reyes, CF S4), the Chair of the Rules and Government Committee asked this Office to provide a report addressing the two motions. The Office of the City Clerk has reported on the topic of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) previously. The most recent report, completed in February 2008, was a comprehensive report addressing a number of Election options, including IRV and a Vote-by-Mail-centered election model. Subsequent to the February 2008 report, the Council requested information on the cost of both an Instant Runoff Voting system and a Vote-by-Mail-centered election system. Further discussion was postponed until more definitive cost information was available about these alternatives once responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new election system were available. The RFP has been released, but cost information will not be available until December 2008, at the earliest. This report will summarize the issues the Council may wish to consider in determining whether a ballot measure should be put forward regarding implementing IRV in the City of Los Angeles. While there are benefits associated with an IRV system of voting, these issues require deliberation and should be worked through if an IRV system is to be implemented. Because IRV allows elections to be decided in a single election, without need for a runoff, the fundamental policy question for the Council is whether there is value in having the period between the Primary and General Elections. Is this period important in allowing the voters to gain additional information to better evaluate two remaining candidates and allow the remaining candidates to focus their message to better reach the voting public? Given the answer to this policy question, there are other issues regarding IRV which should be considered. None of the remaining issues is insurmountable, however, they are not trivial, nor should they be characterized as simple to address. Any change to an election system has OCT RULES & GOVERNMENT AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

2 Page 2 challenges and potential consequences, as well as potential impacts to voters, which must be carefully considered and addressed. The issues fall into several general categories: 1) Purchase and Voting System Logistics; 2) Impact on Voters; 3) Impact on Pollworkers; 4) Coordination/Consolidation with the County and Other Jurisdictions; 5) Cost; and, 6) Considerations for a Charter Amendment. Purchase and Voting System Logistics The InkaVote Plus voting system currently used in the City cannot accommodate IRV. In order to utilize IRV, a new election system, with an IRV component, would need to be purchased. Any new system would need to be fully certified and approved for use in California. Impact on Voters Currently there is no fully approved IRV system available in California (San Francisco's system is approved conditionally, for one-time use on November 4, 2008). The City has released an RFP for a new voting system. Voting system providers may include an IRV component as part of their proposal. Any award of contract for a new voting system will require City Council approval. If a system is purchased which is different from that used by the County of Los Angeles, various logistical and storage issues will need to be addressed. For example, separate City equipment will need to be stored. The City does not currently have warehouse space to accommodate additional election equipment. Since the Inka Vote Plus system voting equipment (vote recorders, precinct ballot readers, audio ballot booths) is currently shared with the County, the equipment is stored at the County's warehouse facility. Storage facilities may need to be explored, purchased or leased. Because the City and County currently use the same voting system, voters in the City and the County have a consistent voting experience. IRVelection. This would change if the City were to move to an Utilizing an IRV system would be a significant departure from what voters in Los Angeles have become accustomed to over the past several decades. If an IRV system were adopted, voters in the City of Los Angeles would use two different voting systems one system for City municipal elections and a different system for County, State and Federal elections. An extensive voter education and outreach campaign would be required to inform over 2 million voters in the City of Los Angeles, LAUSD, and LACCD areas, of the

3 Page 3 new municipal voting system and how to use it. A variety of media would need to be utilized to effectively reach all segments of diverse voting communities, including education campaigns focused on minority and other special needs voters, and media utilizing all 7 languages required for elections in Los Angeles. Impact on Pollworkers The City and County use the same pool of pollworkers to conduct elections. If the City were to move to an IRV system of voting, different from what the County uses, pollworkers would need to understand both types of voting systems and be able to effectively assist voters. Pollworker education would be a significant component of the rollout of a new system. Logistical concerns need to be addressed. Pollworkers carry supplies to polling places. IRV may require large paper ballots which are heavier and more cumbersome to transport. Coordination/Consolidation with the County and Other Jurisdictions The City and County currently use the Inka Vote Plus voting system. Originally, the City and County were to jointly purchase a new tally system that would accompany the Inka Vote system. Certification of the new tally system was suspended and does not appear to be a viable option for the future. However, there are significant considerations in utilizing a voting system that is different from that used by the County. The impact to voters and pollworkers was described above. Additionally, using different voting systems limits the ability to coordinate, consolidate elections and provide back-up capability for both jurisdictions. It also eliminates potential cost sharing with the County of Los Angeles, which has access to Federal and State funds which are not available to municipalities. Shifting to IRV elections limits the City's ability to consolidate municipal races with the County of Los Angeles. Often, the City consolidates Special Elections onto County-run elections. This would not be possible for races inwhich IRV is utilized. Ballot measures still could be consolidated onto State or County ballots (no instant runoff involved). Because races could not be consolidated, Special Elections would either have to be concurrent elections or held on a separate election day. Concurrent elections, which this Office strongly advises against, means conducting two separate elections on the same day. It would require two separate ballots, two separate Vote by Mail applications and ballots, two different tables at one or possibly

4 October 17, 2008 Page 4 two separate polling locations, two sets of pollworkers and greater potential for confusion or mix ups. from an already limited pool, IRV would limit the City's ability to consolidate LAUSD and LACCD races/measures with other cities holding elections on the same day as the City of Los Angeles. Currently the City consolidates LAUSD and LACCD races onto other neighboring cities ballots (such as Beverly Hills, San Fernando, West Hollywood). These cities do not currently use IRV, so consolidation would not be an option. LAUSD and LACCD elections would be run either concurrently or on a different election day. While cost is an important factor to consider in implementing may not be the most important factor. IRV, it is not the only factor, and IRV would result in cost savings from eliminating a runoff election. Current election costs are approximately $8 to $9 million for a citywide election, which includes LAUSD and LACCD races. Savings would not be immediately realized. Initial savings would be reduced by increased voter education. (could decrease over time), increased logistics in storing equipment (possible need for warehouse space), system maintenance costs; potential increased cost of paper ballots. Longer term savings could possibly offset the cost of the new election system. If the City uses a different system from the County of Los Angeles, the advantage of cost sharing with the County for a new election system would be eliminated. However, some costs of a new election system would still be shared with LAUSD andlaccd. Considerations for a Charter Amendment In considering how to craft a potential Charter Amendment, a number of issues should be addressed. These include, but are not limited to: The timing of implementation of a potential IRV should be considered. The motions addressing IRV recognize the need for a certified IRV system. This is one critical requirement of implementation. Other timing considerations include purchase of the system, ability to test and verify system reliability, and so on.

5 October 17, 2008 Page 5 Proponents of IRV The conditions under which IRV would be used must be very clearly defined. IfIRV is to be used on a limited basis, for example, for a Special Election, there must be a very clear set of guidelines for determining when IRV would be used and when it would not. These guidelines must be applied consistently to avoid any perceived manipulation of the election process. Campaign Finance laws currently address a PrimarylRunoff election scenario. Charter provisions as they apply to Campaign Finance, including campaign contributions and matching funds should be addressed. The Ethics Commission should be consulted. Consider changing the Election Day. Currently, municipal elections are held in March and May of odd-numbered years. One consideration is to eliminate the March election day and hold a single election in the month of May. Other factors may come into play depending on the month considered, such as conflicts with religious holidays, impact on terms. Other details would also need to be addressed, such as whether IRV would apply to recall candidates, would the time to certify an election need to be modified, if ranked candidates are tied, how would ties be handled, and so on. The proponents ofirv cite several benefits to IRV. These include eliminating the cost of runoff elections; vacant offices can be filled sooner; negative campaigning would be reduced since the candidates must consider all the rankings of voters when conducting their campaigns; so called strategic voting and vote splitting among similar candidates would be reduced; candidate campaign costs of the runoff election would be eliminated; the number of elections would be reduced and, higher voter turnout would result. Some of these claims can be debated. However, the benefit of others is clearer - cost savings would likely result in the long run, once initial costs are covered; vacancies can be filled more quickly; and, reducing the number of elections could potentially address the issue of voter fatigue. San Francisco Model San Francisco amended its Charter in 2002 to allow for IRV elections and was intended to be used in November Implementation, however, was not without issue. San Francisco was unable to implement IRV for the November 2002 election and did not implement in November 2003 in part because of the lack of a certified IRV system. Implementation was delayed until The city was sued over this delay. In 2007, San Francisco held its first municipal Mayoral election using IRV. Issues arose with regard to the ballot tabulation system and as a result, ballot tabulation was delayed. San Francisco has since purchased a different voting system, which also

6 Page 6 incorporates IRV. This system recently (October 14, 2008) received a one-time approval from the Secretary of State for use in the November 4, 2008 election. The system has not yet received Federal certification. By some accounts, voters in San Francisco have responded positively to using IRV. However, in comparing San Francisco to Los Angeles, it is important to note some of the differences between the two jurisdictions. It is difficult to say with any certainty that the experience in San Francisco will easily transfer to Los Angeles. First, San Francisco City and County are the same jurisdiction with the same boundaries. Elections for both the City and County are run by the San Francisco Department of Elections. Therefore, San Francisco does not face the issues regarding cost, consistent voting experience, consolidation, etc. that arise from the fact that the City and County of Los Angeles are separate entities which run separate elections. [Note: Berkeley and Oakland have approved IRV in concept. Berkeley will do so if it does not preclude consolidation with the County. Oakland will use IRV when the Alameda County Registrar of Voters is able to conduct the election on behalf of the city.] Additionally, San Francisco has a much smaller geographical area, covering approximately 47 square miles (compared to 850 square miles in Los Angeles, including LAUSD and LACCD; 478 square miles in the City limits), 450,000 registered voters (compared to 2 million registered voters in Los Angeles' jurisdiction; 1.4 million in the City limits) and 560 precincts (compared to 2,000 in the City, LAUSD and LACCD; 1,700 in the City limits). Additionally, Los Angeles arguably has a more diverse population, with election material provided in seven languages. San Francisco produces material in three languages. In summary, there are a number of important factors to consider in determining whether to move forward with a ballot measure regarding Instant Runoff Voting. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at 213/ Sincerely, Karen E. Kalfayan Interim City Clerk EXE