FairVote - Legislation to Support

Ranked Choice Voting Legislation

Vermont – H 196
  • Status: Introduced in the house by 49 sponsors, shortly to be introduced in senate.
  • Summary: This legislation would implement IRV for federal and state level statewide offices in 2008.
  • Key organizational support: Wide support, including League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Grange, AFL-CIO, VPIRG, American Association of University Women
  • Key legislative support: Most powerful lawmakers in the house. Senate majority leader and other key senators. Secretary of State backs IRV for at least some statewide offices.
  • Effect on democratic participation: IRV expands democratic participation by enabling voters to express their true preferences among all candidates in a single election without worrying about spoiler dynamics or wasted votes. In its first use in Burlington’s mayoral race, turnout rose sharply, and 99.9% of voters cast valid ballots.
Colorado – HB 07-1162
  • Status: Introduced by Rep. John Kefalas and Sen. Ken Gordon (senate majority leader)
  • Summary: This legislation creates a study group to study IRV and other advanced voting methods such as proportional voting and requirements for implementing these methods. It originally directed the Secretary of State to select political subdivisions for advanced voting method pilot programs and provide assistance to local governments in implementing these programs, but in amended form will wait to enact that program until after the study.
  • Key organizational support: Three of state’s most important groups: Colorado Progressive Coalition, Colorado Common Cause, and Progress Now Action, along with Colorado Green Party. Adoption of IRV in Denver has won the support of the Central Labor Council and key neighborhood groups.
  • Key legislative support: Rep. Weismann, chair of the State Affairs Committee, backed amended bill as it passed out of his committee 8-3. Senate sponsor Gordon is the majority leader.
Minnesota – SF 39
  • Status: Introduced with five sponsors in the state senate.
  • Summary: This legislation would require IRV for federal and state races in which three or more candidates are competing. It clarifies that home rule charter cities are able to adopt IRV and allows statutory cities to adopt IRV through an initiative process. It also requires certain school district elections to either hold primaries or use IRV for the general election.
  • Key organizational support: IRV in Minneapolis won the support of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota, FairVote Minnesota, the Green, Libertarian and Independence Parties of Minnesota, the Minneapolis DFL and many others. The Minneapolis Star Tribune regularly writes editorials backing IRV for statewide elections.
  • Key legislative support: IRV has strong support among the Minneapolis delegations in both houses. Additionally, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has been an active supporter of IRV.
  • Effect on democratic participation: IRV expands democratic participation by enabling voters to express their true preferences among all candidates in a single election without worrying about spoiler dynamics or wasted votes.
Washington – IRV legislation (Pierce County assistance)
  • Status: Definitely will be introduced in some form, likely by senate majority leader
  • Summary:  Bill will provide assistance to Pierce County in its implementation of IRV, likely with funds for voter education and any adjustments of state law needed to smooth introduction of bill.
  • Key organizational support: League of Women Voters;
  • Key legislative support:  Backers of IRV include senate majority leader Lisa Brown and leaders within both parties, as IRV has drawn more bipartisan support in IRV than in most other states..
Washington – IRV legislation SB  6000 (options to expand use of IRV)
  • Status: Introduced in the senate as SB 6000 and in the house as HB 202
  • Summary:  Bill will allow all localities in counties like Pierce County to use IRV to elect their officials if the county has the capacity to run IRV elections  
  • Key organizational support: League of Women Voters may support, as backs IRV. IRV-Washington.
  • Key legislative support:  Backers of IRV include senate majority leader Lisa Brown and leaders within both parties, as IRV has drawn more bipartisan support in IRV than in most other states.
Maine – IRV legislation   
  • Status: Definitely will be introduced after certain legal issues and election administration issues resolved.
  • Summary:  Bill likely will focus on using IRV for governor and potentially other offices.
  • Key organizational support: Common Cause; individuals who had been leaders in Maine Citizenship Leadership Fund, given connection in state of IRV to public financing; League of Independent Voters; Green Party leaders; plausible League of Women Voters (currently studying issue for concurrence with other states).
  • Key legislative support:  Backers of IRV include house speaker Glenn Cummings, house majority leader Hannah Pingree and senate leaders.
Maryland – HB 18
  • Status: Introduced by Del. Sheila Hixson
  • Summary: This legislation would require voter equipment to produce a voter-verified paper trail. Hixson has agreed to amend the bill to require all new voting machines purchased in the state to have the ability to capture ballot images in order to run ranked choice elections including IRV.
  • Key organizational support: FairVote Action Maryland and FairVote
  • Key legislative support: The District 20 delegation is supportive and represents the city of Takoma Park, which currently runs IRV elections on paper ballots due to a lack of ranked choice capable equipment.
Arizona – HB 2287
  • Status: Introduced with eight sponsors
  • Summary: This legislation would give cities permission to use IRV and choice voting form of proportional voting (using umbrella term “ranked choice voting.”. It also updates state voting equipment requirements and includes a mandate for ranking choice voting compatibility.
  • Key organizational support: League of Women Voters Arizona strongly backs this bill and has made the issue a priority. Libertarian and Green Parties are also supportive.
  • Key legislative support: None identified in particular beyond those who sponsored the legislation
Arkansas – HB 1351
  • Status: Introduced by Rep. Lamoureux
  • Summary: This legislation would require municipalities to use IRV instead of two round runoffs for most elections. Arkansas in 2005 adopted legislation to have military personnel stationed overseas be able to cast IRV ballots in all elections that might go to a runoff.
  • Key organizational support: unknown
Oregon: Pending IRV Loal Option Bill
  • Status: Has been submitted for introduction by Rep. Buckley
  • Summary: This legislation would create an IRV option for local governments.
  • Key organizational support: Expected support from Democratic Party, OSPIRG, Alliance for Democracy and Libertarian and Green Parties. The Civics Education League is active but with limited. Several city councilors have signed on in support.
  • Key legislative support: Other Democratic representatives have sponsored IRV legislation in previous sessions.
California - Proposed Local Option Ranked Choice Voting Bill
  • Status: Legislative proposal currently seeking a legislative author.
  • Summary: This legislation would allow general law cities, general law counties, boards of education, and special districts to use ranked voting systems, specifically Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Choice Voting, to elect local officials and legislative bodies.
  • Key organizational support: Californians for Electoral Reform, New America Foundation, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote. Local Democratic Party organizations have endorsed recent local IRV efforts and Secretary of State Deb Bowen is also a supporter (sponsored similar legislation when head of elections committee in senate in 2005-6)
  • Key legislative support: Allies, but need lead sponsor
California - Proposed Overseas Ranked Ballot Bill
  • Status: Legislative proposal currently seeking a legislative author.
  • Summary: This bill would require California jurisdictions that hold runoff elections within 90 days of the first round to provide ranked ballots to military and other overseas absentee voters to enable their participation.
  • Key organizational support: Californians for Electoral Reform, New America Foundation, League of Women Voters. Local Democratic Party organizations have endorsed recent local IRV efforts and Secretary of State Deb Bowen is also a supporter.
  • Key legislative support: Allies, but seeking lead sponsor.
Hawaii – IRV Bill SB 630
  • Status: Introduced by Sen. Les Ihara
  • Summary: This legislation would require the use of IRV for elections in which no primary is held.
  • Key organizational support: In past has won backing of some state good government groups
  • Key legislative support: None identified.
New York - Proposed IRV Bill
  • Status: To be introduced by Senator Liz Krueger (D) and Assembly Member Fried Thiele (R).
  • Summary: This bill would require New York State local jurisdictions to use instant runoff voting
  • Key organizational support: New York State IRV. General support for IRV and perhaps this bill by civic groups like NY PIRG, Citizens’ Union , Demos and New Democracy Project. Support for IRV among some leading election officials in the state.
  • Key legislative support: Bill to be introduced in the senate by Liz Krueger (D) and in the assembly by Fred Thiele (R).
Voter Registration Reform Legislation

Maryland SB 31—Elections-Voter Registration and Voting-Age-sets 16-years-old as the uniform voter registration age
  • Status: Pending, hearing took place 2/8/07
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This bill would set establish a uniform age of 16-years-old for voter registration.  When an advance registrant becomes eligible to vote, his or her name is automatically moved from “inactive” status to the “active” voter rolls.
  • Key organizational support: League of Women Voters, State Board of Elections-Voter Registration Division, Maryland Votes
  • Key legislative support: Senate Sponsors: Senators Raskin, Frosh, Lenett, Muse, Peters, Pinsky, Rosapepe, Simonaire, Stone, and Zirkin
  • Key opposition (both legislative and organizational, if relevant): None yet identified.

Maryland SB 128-Constitution Day and Citizenship Day and Civic Responsibility for Students
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): Definitely to be introduced, with bi-partisan support.
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This bill establishes a standard curriculum for Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, which includes teaching students about the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution. It also instructs public schools to hold “assemblies, discussions, presentations, and events” and also “the opportunity for eligible students to register to vote.” FairVote’s goal with this prospective law is to promote systematic registration of all eligible voters before they leave high school and introduce them to voting mechanics in their community.
  • Key organizational support: League of Women Voters, State Board of Elections-Voter Registration Division, Maryland Votes, Rock the Vote, ACLU-Maryland
  • Key legislative support: Senate Sponsors: Senators Raskin, Britt, Della, Forehand, Garagiola, Lenett, Madaleno, Middleton, Muse, Peters, Pugh, Robey, Rosapepe, Simonaire, and Zirkin

Rhode Island Proposed legislation: Lowers registration age to 16-years-old
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): passed last session and vetoed by Gov., will be reintroduced
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This bill would set a uniform minimum age of 16-years-old when citizens can register to vote.
  • Key organizational support: Effort led by lawmakers, getting to governor’s desk in 2006.
  • Key legislative support: Representatives Pacheco, Rice, Diaz, and Ajello. New representative David Segal will ensure introduced.
South Carolina Universal Registration Act (S 254)
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): introduced in Senate, likely to be introduced in House
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): In seeking the goal of universal registration, this bill establishes that the state Department of Education must “ensure that all 17-year-old high school students have the opportunity to register to vote” and will receive voter registration cards and participation in a class about voting before turning 18. Local school boards determine the method used to register students.
  • Key organizational support: SC Progressive Network (a coalition of progressive organizations).
  • Key legislative support: Introduced to youth registration proposals by FairVote, Inez Tenenbaum (the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education) helped craft the bill.
South Carolina  S251 Repeal 30-day registration ban
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): introduced in Senate, likely to be introduced in House
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This law changes the number of days before an election someone can register to vote from 30 days to 21 days.
  • Key organizational support: SC Progressive Network
  • Key legislative support: Unknown.

California  AB183 Voter Registration as graduation requirement
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): introduced in Assembly
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This law requires high school students to register to vote as a graduation requirement.
  • Key organizational support: Unknown at this time, but likely to be broad, including New America Foundation
  • Key legislative support: Latino Legislative Caucus, Assemblyman Joe Coto
Minnesota Automatic Registration of Driver’s License and Identification Card Applicants (Proposed amendment to MN Code 201.161)
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): likely to be introduced, as crafted by the newly elected Secretary of State.
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This law automatically registers all citizens at the time of their application for a driver’s license or state identification card. People have the right to decline to be registered. Young people’s voter registration automatically will become active when they reach voting age.
  • Key organizational support: Unknown at this time, but likely to be broad, including key backing of election officials and NGO’s
  • Key legislative support: Unknown at this time, but labor unions have in the past supported such an automation of voter registration

National Popular Vote Legislation
  • State: All states in 2007 except Idaho and possibly Nebraska and New Hampshire
  • Category:  Presidential election reform
  • Proposed legislation:  The National Popular Vote plan calls for states to pass identical legislation to enter them into an interstate agreement to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NPV plan is founded on two rights given to states under the Constitution: first, to enter into binding interstate compacts, and second, the power over how to allocate Electoral College votes (a power to change existing rules that states regularly exercised in the nation’s early years, and that Maine and Nebraska exercise today).
  • Status: Legislators introduced the legislation or have pledged to do so in 47 states. Bills are active in about 25 states as of February 7 and are moving in several states; it has passed the Colorado senate and likely will have senate floor votes in February in Hawaii, where it passed out of key committees with a vote of 5-0. Passage to the governor is plausible in some six to a dozen states in 2007.
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): Participating states would enter into a interstate compact in which they agree to award all of their electoral votes as a block to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular vote ins all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact only becomes active if in July of a presidential election year, the number of participating states collectively represents a majority of electoral votes, enough to guarantee election of the national popular vote winner.
  • Key organizational support: National Popular Vote, FairVote, Common Cause and various groups in states such as Progressive Maryland
  • Key legislative support: Nearly 200 state legislators have signed onto the National Popular Vote plan. It won a majority in the Colorado state senate, and majorities of both parties in committee votes in Hawaii. and Montana. Backers include legislative leaders in a number of states.
  • Expands or restricts democratic participation? Expands. The current Electoral College system dampens voter participation in a majority of states, with voter turnout now some 10% higher in battlegrounds than the rest of the nation and more than 17% among eligible voters under 30. A white person is more than 50% more likely to live in a 2004 swing state than a person

Citizens Assembly Legislation

Hawaii SB 1845 Creation of a Citizens Assembly to Propose Constitutional and Statutory Revisions or Amendments to Laws Governing Elections, Campaigns, Ethics, and Public Access to Information (SB 1845)
  • Status (pending, definitely will be introduced, likely to be introduced, anticipated): Definitely will be introduced
  • Summary (2-3 sentences): This law would select a representative assembly of twenty-five Hawaiians to hear and recommend various reforms relating to campaigns, ethics, and public access to information in Hawaii.
  • Key organizational support: Unknown at this time, but likely to be broad, including key backing of elected officials and NGO’s
  • Key legislative support: Senator Les Ihara, Jr.