|
San Francisco Chronicle
Judge denies instant
election runoff Though illegal, S.F. voters' wish not granted for
Nov. 4 mayoral ballot
By Rachel Gordon
August 21,
2003 A San Francisco Superior Court judge agreed with city
elections officials Wednesday that they should not enact a new
voter-mandated instant runoff system for the November election even
though they will be violating the law. Forcing the city to use
instant runoff voting would endanger the integrity of the vote and
therefore should not be done, the judge said. "The ultimate
election outcome would be jeopardized," said Judge James Warren, who
issued his ruling from the bench. San Francisco voters in March
2002 said instant runoff voting should be in place by this fall's
election. However, in court documents, the city attorney said that
putting the new system in place now would cause a "potential train
wreck on Nov. 4." The election includes races for mayor, district
attorney and sheriff. The Center for Voting and Democracy and the
San Francisco Labor Council are part of a coalition promoting
instant runoff voting that filed a lawsuit against city elections
director John Arntz and the Elections Commission seeking to force
the city to comply with the will of the voters. The coalition has
not decided whether to appeal Warren's ruling. Under instant runoff
voting, also known as ranked-choice voting, voters would rank their
top three candidates in order of preference. If no candidate had
more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, the candidate
with the least support would be eliminated, and the second choice on
those ballots would move up to the top with those votes being
instantly recounted. This would continue until one candidate had the
50 percent-plus majority. However, barring a successful appeal, the
judge's ruling will keep the city's old runoff system in place. It
dictates that if no candidate secures at least 50 percent of the
vote in the Nov. 4 election, the two top vote-getters will face off
in a one-on-one election in December. Arntz told the court that it
would be impossible to put the new vote- tallying system in place
for the November election, given that the hardware and software for
a mechanized vote-count has not been certified by the state, and
that back-up plans for a partial hand count were rejected by the
state authorities. An alternative plan, for a full manual count by
a British firm that specializes in the procedure, has been untested
in the United States and would lead to chaos and confusion, Arntz
argued, although proponents disagreed. The city attorney also said
the proposed alternative would not meet state fair elections
requirements. "We don't want another Florida," said Deputy City
Attorney Wayne Snodgrass, who argued the case. Lowell Finley,
attorney for the plaintiffs, said the city was under obligation to
enact instant runoff voting. To do otherwise, he said, denies the
rights of the electorate and poses "a serious, grave injury."
Warren said Finley's argument was compelling, but in weighing both
sides opted to defer to the judgment of the elections director.
Arntz is the sixth director to run the department in as many years.
He became acting elections chief in April 2002 after moving up the
ranks. He got the job permanently 13 months later, though he is
still on probation and serves at the will of the Elections
Commission, which is locked in a leadership battle -- ostensibly
fueled over differences among the members over instant runoff
voting. Outside the courtroom, after the verdict, Steven Hill of
the Center for Voting and Democracy said Arntz and the city's
elections department had almost 18 months to get the new system in
place and should have succeeded. "We've seen a lot of fumbling and
bumbling going on," he said. During questioning from the bench,
Judge Warren suggested a similar take on the city's efforts to put
the new system in place, calling it "at best, bumpy." Arntz said he
had done the best he could but was working with an elections systems
vendor who didn't fulfill the promise to have the software and
machinery certified on time. Complicating the matter, he said, is
the unexpected Oct. 7 state recall election, which has diverted
staff resources at the Department of Elections. |
