IRV Lawsuit News Conference
Steven Hill statement on Monday August 11,
2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Statement from Steven Hill at
the news conference following the filing of a lawsuit against the
City and County of San Francisco for failure to implement instant
runoff voting (IRV) Good morning, and thank you to members of the
media and the public for attending. Some have asked, Why are we
filing this lawsuit today against the City and County of San
Francisco? Why not do the "reasonable" thing, and wait until next
year for IRV implementation? The answer is very simple. The
Department of Elections and the Elections Commission have had 17
months to implement instant runoff voting. Not six months, not
twelve months, but 17 months. It's been nearly a year and a half
since Proposition A was passed on March 5, 2002. We think that'Ts
enough time, more than enough time. Furthermore, we still think IRV
is doable this November. We do not believe the Department of
Elections has explored all possible options. We believe the
Department of Elections has made several key mistakes, endangering
the success of implementation. Looking at the long list of excuses
employed for not using IRV this year, and mindful of the frequent
election schedule over the next year, including elections and
potential elections in October, November, December, March, and June
which provide more excuses to not implement, and wary of the
powerful political forces arrayed against IRV implementation, we are
not confident that we will see an IRV election next year. So we are
going to court to ensure that the law -- and the will of the voters
-- is upheld, and that instant runoff voting is implemented on
schedule. My organization, the Center for Voting and Democracy, is
proud to be joined by organizations and individuals as co-plaintiffs
that represent a true cross-section of San Francisco, including the
Congress of California Seniors, Chinese Progressive Association, San
Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and the California Public Interest
Research Group (CalPIRG), and individuals Gwenn Craig, Enrique Asis,
Tracy Baxter, and Arthur Chang. Here's a quick recap of why we
think the city should implement instant runoff voting this year. 1.
As a matter of law, December runoff elections now are illegal. The
charter amendment implementing instant runoff voting wiped out the
old part of the charter that allowed for December runoff elections.
If the City is allowed to run a December election anyway, without
charter authorization or without a judge's order, what does that say
about the power of laws and the "will of the people"? The voice of
democracy will have suffered irreparable harm, a diminution of
popular sovereignty. 2. If the City is allowed to run a December
election without charter authorization or without a judge's order,
then why can't the City move the November election back to December,
and use IRV? Moving the date of the election seems as doable to us
-- and better fulfills the law -- than running an illegal December
runoff. 3. The gubernatorial recall election is going to put the
Department of Elections under even greater stress than usual. If it
has to hold a December runoff, that means three elections in 10
weeks and four elections in five months. Taking one election off
that calendar will save around $4 million and allow them to focus on
conducting the other elections better. 4. All the benefits of IRV --
that caused voters to strongly pass it in March 2002 -- still hold
true today. It will save taxpayers millions that currently are
wasted paying for an unnecessary second election. It is a clear form
of campaign finance reform, since candidates do not have to raise
money for a second election (also, see the excellent San Francisco
Ethics Commission resolution at www.fairvote.org/sf
, which states
unequivocally that IRV is needed to stanch the fourfold increase in
independent expenditures that occurs during the December runoff). It
maximizes turnout in the decisive November election, particularly in
minority precincts that see disproportionate declines in voter
turnout during low-turnout December runoffs. It will more likely
elect winners who have support from the majority, AND accomplish
this in one election. It will create decrease hack-attack politics
and polarizing campaigns, since winning candidates will have
incentives to build coalitions and try and appeal to the supporters
of other candidate for their number 2 ranking. 5. If IRV is
abandoned this year, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will
be used next year. Director of Elections John Arntz won't give it a
thought until after next March's primary, and given what happened
this year, that makes us very nervous. We also expect opponents --
particularly the consultants and the powerful political forces who
don't like IRV for self-interested reasons -- will attempt to repeal
it. 6. The City has more time to await certification of its
upgraded voting equipment than it is alleging. The equipment has
been upgraded, and its vendor, ES&S, is awaiting certification
at the Secretary of State's office. In our lawsuit we will ask the
judge to determine when is the last possible moment when the plug
can be pulled on awaiting certification of the upgraded voting
machines. The recent federal ruling on the recall bolsters our
contention that the Department doesn't have to make that decision
until the third week in September. Our attorney says that federal
decision is loaded with points useful to our case, including the
stipulation by the Secretary of State and registrars of two large
counties (Los Angeles and San Diego) not to print, mail or
distribute any ballots or instructions on the recall voting
procedures until August 20 -- for an Oct. 7 election! This arms us
with a powerful example of how rapidly elections materials and
procedures can be altered up to a point reasonably close to an
election. The analogous date for a November 4th election would be
the third week in September. And that would give the ES&S
application time to be certified by the Secretary of State. 7. But
the Department of Elections does not need to wait for the Secretary
of State to implement instant runoff voting. We have another ready
alternative. It is called a "hand count," conducted on paper
ballots. Britain, Ireland and Australia have run IRV hand-counts for
many decades. Let me be clear: I am NOT talking about the "John
Arntz method," the so-called "partial hand count" that was projected
to cost $2.3 million and could not guarantee election results in 28
days, and consequently was denied certification by the Secretary of
State. I'm talking about a low-tech solution but a real solution. A
firm with years of experience in conducting IRV hand-counts has
forwarded to the Department of Elections a sound proposal. This firm
would run a hand count of IRV ballots and produce election results
in TWO days -- not 28 -- and for little more than $250,000. That's a
tenth of the cost of the "John Arntz method," and a fraction of the
$4 million cost of a second citywide election in December. Moreover,
because this method does not involve the use of voting equipment, it
does not require certification by the Secretary of State, since the
Secretary's certification process only applies to equipment and
machines. 8. Voters in other places again and again have
demonstrated that simply numbering candidates is a very easy task.
Ranked ballots have resulted in extremely low rates of ballot
spoilage, attesting to the ease of use for voters. In fact, paper
ballot systems often have lower voter error rates than voting
machines. When Ann Arbor, Michigan use instant runoff voting on
traditional paper ballots in 1975, just a few months after its
adoption by voters in November 1974, voter error declined sharply,
from 2.3% to 1.2%. New York's local school board elections using
ranked ballots not only have produced more representation for
minority communities than any other election in New York, but there
has been a lower rate of voter error for those elections than in the
presidential election. Internationally, instant runoff voting is
used to elect the president of Ireland and a similar ranked-choice
system is used to elect the parliament of Malta. In both elections,
a paper ranked ballot is used, and the rate of invalid ballots is
typically less than 1.0% - well below the national error rate of
more than 2% in the American presidential election in 2000. 9. We
have a strong legal case. A low-tech solution for a hand count using
paper ballots does not require certification by the Secretary of
State, and there's plenty of time to implement it by November 4. IRV
is the law, December runoffs are not. Charter cities have broad
discretion under California law and the California Constitution to
change their charter and decide local election matters for
themselves. And an IRV election in November will make the Department
of Election' job EASIER, not more difficult, since they can
outsource the ballot-counting under a pure hand count plan to the
other firm, and they will no longer have to start planning for a
December election in September. They can enjoy their holidays for a
change. In short, instant runoff voting for this November is
doable, legal, and desirable. It upholds the will of the voters
,which desires to get rid of December elections and use instant
runoff voting to elect local offices. We have a top-notch lawyer to
make our arguments in court. Lowell Finley is an experienced
election law attorney, and now, I turn you over to him to answer any
legal questions that you might have. Steven Hill Center for Voting and Democracy |