Working for Change
Bureaucrats stall IRV in
San Francisco: Elected and unelected officials nationwide block
reform legislation By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
September 2, 2003 Instant
runoff voting (IRV) is an exciting new reform idea in the United
States. IRV allows voters to rank their candidates, 1, 2, 3, and the
rankings are used to hold an "instant" runoff election if no
candidate has an initial majority. Election winners are those
supported by a majority, elected in a single election, and
candidates from multiple perspectives can run without fear of being
branded a spoiler or splitting the vote. For that reason, IRV is a
clear ticket to multi-party democracy. Well-tested in a growing
number of places around the world, including national elections in
Ireland and Australia, IRV also encourages coalition-building and
higher voter turnout. In March 2002, IRV advocates won a stirring
ballot measure victory in San Francisco, beating back opponents who
spent more than $100,000 to keep the status quo. But powerful
opponents do not give up easily. On August 20, a Superior Court
judge ruled that the San Francisco Department of Elections is
breaking the law by failing to implement IRV for this November's
elections for mayor and other offices. The judge sternly chastised
the Department, characterizing its efforts to implement IRV since
passage of the charter amendment as "fumbling" and "haphazard." In
a troubling turn, however, the judge gave the Department of
Elections permission to postpone implementing IRV until 2004. He
feared that, with time running out before the November election
combined with the pressures of the statewide recall election in
October, these bumbling bureaucrats could not be relied on to
implement IRV fairly. It was a classic Catch-22. Immediately
following his ruling, the city's elections director then had the
gall to tell reporters that he could not guarantee that IRV will be
in place by the November 2004 elections, more than two and a half
years after voters approved the system. Apparently no amount of time
is enough for this fumbling director. The ruling has disappointed
IRV advocates, both those in the City who looked forward to its
positive impact on the City's hotly contested race for mayor, and
those who believe that an American model of IRV will lead to rapid
adoption in a range of elections across the nation. But beyond its
impact on IRV, this year's developments point to a larger problem.
What happens when unelected government bureaucrats fail, either by
design or ineptitude, to implement the law? After the marches and
protests of the civil rights movement that resulted in landmark
legislation, the federal government forced Southern bureaucrats to
uphold the law. Who will uphold the laws for democratic reform in
San Francisco, or other states and cities? In Alameda County, for
example, when charter cities Berkeley and Oakland expressed interest
in using IRV, the county's Director of Elections informed both
cities that he would refuse to run their elections and even deny
them the opportunity to use the county's voting equipment for IRV
elections. In Santa Rosa, a charter commission last year recommended
using another fair election method called cumulative voting for city
council elections to give better representation to that community's
burgeoning diversity, but the county election director informed them
she would not run cumulative voting elections. These administrators
are not elected, but apparently hold effective veto power over
proposed reforms. In Massachusetts, a major victory at the ballot
box for public financing of elections was upended by the Speaker of
the House, and even a court order was unable to prevent it. Federal
bureaucrats began undermining McCain-Feingold immediately following
its passage. In other states, reformers seek badly-needed changes
like election day registration (EDR). But what if a state passed
EDR, only to see election officials refuse to implement it? What
recourse do reformers have when unelected bureaucrats, or even
elected politicians, disobey the law? They can go to court, as we
did in San Francisco. But going to court is expensive -- and in this
case, still did not lead the judge to order election administrators
to uphold the law and do their job. There are lessons to be learned
here. For one, winning at the ballot box is only part of the battle.
The movement for political reform, whether it involves clean
elections or IRV, must be prepared to defend its wins in court, and
to resist repeal attempts. The history of full (proportional)
representation used in two dozen city councils like New York City
and Cincinnati shows that the anti-reformers mounted repeal after
repeal, waiting for any opportunity to roll back the reform that
most challenged their political machines. But is the national
reform movement equipped -- financially and strategically -- for
such a deep and unwavering commitment? Where are the movement
lawyers, the movement funders, and political strategists who can
assist reformers in the field when our successes are threatened?
Does the movement for political reform have the strength and
strategy to hold stonewalling bureaucrats' feet to the fire? There
are no easy answers to these questions. IRV is far from dead in San
Francisco, as advocates are preparing a strategy to ensure IRV is
implemented in November 2004. Yet this is an opportune time for
reflection, as we assess how state and national reformers can keep
the reforms they win even as they seek urgently needed new
victories. Steven Hill and Rob Richie are with the Center for Voting
and Democracy (www.fairvote.org). Hill was the campaign manager for
the ballot measure which passed IRV and a leader for the effort to
implement IRV. For more information about
CVD's upcoming national conference, "Claim Democracy," November
22-23 in Washington, D.C., backed by a broad range of pro-democracy
groups, visit www.democracyusa.org/events/conference.html
|