IRV's Effect on Minorities in San Francisco
Fulfill the will of the voters
by Gwenn Craig, Rich DeLeon, Paul Melbostad
June 13, 2003
Instant runoff voting -- whereby voters pick not only their first but
secondary choices -- will eliminate the costly and poorly attended runoffs
that have become a fixture of San Francisco elections. The appeal was evident
in the approval of last year's ballot measure, which passed with 55 percent
of the vote.
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley and the San Francisco Elections
Commission are doing everything possible to speed the implementation of instant
runoff voting. Recently, Elections Systems and Software, the company hired by
the city to upgrade voting equipment, submitted its work plan to Shelley for
certification. Everything appears to be on track for the November election.
Yet a disinformation campaign has begun. Unfortunately, some political
operatives and organizations are attempting to undermine the process, because
they believe their interests will fare better in a low-turnout December runoff.
They are trying to politicize what should be a straightforward administrative
issue. That's a disservice to San Francisco.
Instant runoff voting is critically important for getting rid of unnecessary
December runoffs that have been inconvenient for voters and cost millions of
tax dollars. Perhaps most important, however, is that instant runoff voting will
empower minority voters in San Francisco.
San Francisco's previous December runoff system discriminated against
communities of color. Research from San Francisco State University demonstrated
that, while citywide voter turnout declined in most December runoffs, it declined
even more in minority precincts. Communities of color often do not have the
financial resources to mobilize voters for two back-to-back elections.
Consequently, the final decisive election in December occurred when minority
voter turnout was at its lowest. Also, the December runoff forced candidates to
raise money for two elections, which was an additional disadvantage for minority
candidates.
Moreover, there is strong evidence that ranked-ballot elections in other
places have had a positive effect on communities of color. For instance, instant
runoff voting elected a black Democratic mayor in Ann Arbor, Mich., in 1975. A
legal challenge to the system by the losing Republican candidate was rejected by
a Michigan court, and instant runoff voting was upheld as constitutional and in
full compliance with the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark "one person, one vote" decision in the 1960s.
Ranked ballots in New York City's community school board elections have provided
opportunities for racial minorities since 1969. In these elections, large percentages
of non-English speaking voters participated. As the Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund has documented, Asian American candidates achieved greater electoral
success in these elections than in any other elections in New York City. Latino and
African Americans also consistently won fair representation.
According to the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ranked
ballots encouraged coalition-building and teamwork, and helped minority communities
to prevent split votes among their own competing candidates. The U. S. Department
of Justice upheld the use of New York City's ranked ballot elections, and Bill Lann
Lee, first Asian American director of the DOJ's civil rights division, was involved
in this decision.
San Francisco's communities of color strongly voted in favor of Proposition A's
instant runoff voting, including 69 percent support in Latino precincts, 62 percent
in African American precincts and 55 percent in Asian American precincts. In fact,
the only major demographic that voted against Proposition A were white conservative
precincts. Also Proposition A was endorsed by leading minority groups and leaders,
including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Pacific Democratic Club, Asian Week,
Latino Democratic Club, United Farm Workers, San Francisco Democratic Party, Rep.
Jesse Jackson Jr., Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez, school board
members Eric Mar and Mark Sanchez -- to name a few.
Opponents of instant runoff voting say that it will be costly to implement. But
citywide elections such as a December runoff cost about $4 million, according to
the San Francisco Elections Commission. The estimated costs of implementing instant
runoff voting are less than half that amount. Millions of dollars will be saved
every year we don't have a second election in December. And we will have our
election results a month sooner than with a December runoff.
It is unfortunate that some in San Francisco are choosing to politicize this
implementation process. San Francisco public officials and the California secretary
of state should speedily implement the will of San Francisco voters, which is to
elect our local offices by instant runoff voting.
Gwenn Craig is a former San Francisco police commissioner and chair of the
elections task force. Richard DeLeon is professor of political science at San
Francisco State University. Paul Melbostad is the past president of the San
Francisco Ethics Commission.
Return to the Oakland IRV Home.
|