|
Testimony of Rob Richie
before the Washington State Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Planning Commission
April 2003
Dear Members, Washington Help America Vote Act Planning
Commission,
Thank you for considering my testimony about the importance
of protecting and enhancing Washington’s prospective investment in new voting
equipment.
I am executive director of the Center for Voting and
Democracy, a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization that studies the
American electoral process. The Center is supported by individuals and
foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Joyce Foundation and the Open
Society Institute. Former Congressman John B. Anderson is our president. I had
the good fortune to live in Washington for three years when I was a child and
then again for two years in the early 1990s and care deeply about the state.
Your committee will have an important role in improving
Washington elections in many important respects. We have opinions about a range
of issues, but I would like to focus on one particular concern: ensuring that
new voting equipment has the flexibility to allow Washington jurisdictions to
consider modern electoral systems such as choice voting and instant runoff
voting which are gaining increased attention around the country. We believe this
is both an important issue in itself and one that is valuable to consider in
light of insights it may provide about other potential equipment standards: in
general, the best time to require standards is before a competitive bidding
process rather than after new voting equipment is purchased.
Instant runoff voting is a ranked-choice voting system for
one-seat office elections. Interest in instant runoff voting is growing rapidly,
with at least 20 states now considering legislation to implement it for some
level of election. Recommended by Robert's Rules of Order, instant runoff voting
allows voters to rank candidates in order of choice, rather than select just
one. San Francisco last year adopted instant runoff voting to replace
traditional runoff elections, which will save the city millions of dollars each
year. Louisiana uses instant runoff voting for its overseas absentee ballots,
while Utah Republicans nominate congressional candidates at their state
convention with the system.
Choice voting is a similar ranked-choice electoral system
used in at-large elections or in multi-seat districts. Choice voting for years
was the preferred voting in the Model City Charter of the National Civic League,
and just last year was reaffirmed as an option in the Model Charter. A number of
cities around the nation -- including Cincinnati, Cleveland, New York,
Sacramento and Toledo -- have used choice voting, while in recent years charter
commissions and election task forces have recommended its adoption in places
such as Pasadena (CA), San Francisco (CA) and Kalamazoo (MI).
There are both arguments for and against adoption of these
ranked-choice systems, but I strongly believe they are credible enough
approaches that Washington should preserve the option for jurisdictions to
consider them. The main reason that these systems are not used more often in the
United States is that until a few years ago, their use required counting ballots
by hand. That has changed with new voting equipment. The Republic of Ireland and
the Massachusetts city of Cambridge currently use choice voting on modern voting
equipment (the former with touchscreens, the latter with optical scan), but it
is very important to specify to election system vendors that any new equipment
come with the capacity to use a ranked-choice system to avoid future costs.
The Federal Election Commissions new Voting System
Standards, (which are available at www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html)
already require vendors to specify whether and how its system can implement
ranked order voting [Volume 1 of the standards, Section 2.2.8.2 (n)]. The
clearest way to ensure equipment compatibility is the following language:
"All new voting systems purchased or leased shall
be able to implement ranked order voting in the first election in which the
equipment is used."
We believe this language would ensure the vendor would not
demand additional time and money to modify software or hardware if a
jurisdiction sought to use a ranked choice system. We also do not think it would
add anything to the costs of new voting equipment and software. Among the
reasons are:
First, all major vendors report that they are ready to
implement instant runoff voting. Most have already bid for contracts in which it
was required, such as in the Republic of Ireland and Santa Clara County (CA).
Second, the key requirement for rank-order voting
compatibility is to store ballot images meaning storing each voters individual
rankings, rather than aggregate totals. Touch screen equipment (DRE's) and most
central optical scanners already store ballot images. Any needed software
modifications to output a file of rankings would be minor.
Third, Cambridge (MA) was able to purchase optical scan
equipment seven years ago in which the total cost of making those machines able
to implement two coinciding ranked-choice elections was $40,000 – a one time
cost that was not dependent on the size of the jurisdiction. (See attached letter from the City of Cambridge.)
Fourth, when competing for a contract, a vendor has every
incentive to avoid passing onto one jurisdiction the costs for a feature that it
can use elsewhere. With more and more jurisdictions exploring ranked-choice
systems, vendors know that having its equipment and software be ready to
implement these systems could help it compete for other contracts. An example of
this free-market principle is provided by the February 2003 debate in Santa
Clara County (CA), where the County decided late in the process to require a
voter-verified paper receipt to its touch screen system. All three finalist
vendors quickly stated that they could add the paper receipt at no additional
cost to the county.
But if a jurisdiction waits to add provisions until after
already investing heavily in new hardware, it becomes a captive customer,
totally dependent on its vendor for any upgrades of software. In such a case, we
believe vendors will charge the jurisdiction for all costs associated with
adapting its equipment. Requiring flexibility for ranked-choice systems, and
indeed other qualities such as a voter-verified paper trail, is a classic case
of a stitch in time saving nine in this case a good deal more.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
/s/
Robert Richie
Executive Director
Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting & Democracy
[email protected], www.fairvote.org
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
(301) 270-4616
"Make Your Vote Count!" |
