THE ATTACK ON instant-runoff voting is well underway. Opponents of the system, which allows candidates to rank their choices for public office (and thus avoids expensive, low-turnout runoff elections), have launched a legal and public relations blitz in an effort to make sure IRV isn't in place for the November ballot. City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who will play a key role in this battle, is showing far too much reluctance to defend the electoral reform.
The issue ought to be pretty straightforward: The voters in 2002 approved a City Charter amendment mandating that all elections, starting in November 2003, use the IRV system. It's up to the San Francisco Department of Elections to implement that mandate.
The fact that the city is having problems getting a final contract with its elections software vendor, and that the vendor may be months away from creating a working system, really makes no difference: if the computers don't work on Election Day, the votes have to be counted by hand - however slow and expensive that process may be.
But as Alex Posorske reports on page 13, elections director John Arntz admitted this week that he's also making plans for a traditional December runoff election. It's not clear why that should even be necessary - or how it could possibly be legal.
Herrera's been a bit squishy on this issue. The city attorney hasn't issued a formal legal opinion on the matter but has released a statement saying that "it's certainly reasonable for the City to develop contingency plans [for a December election] - even while remaining hopeful that we won't need them."
That leaves a huge opening for IRV opponents, and Herrera needs to close it. Sup. Tom Ammiano, who is running for mayor and has the highest stake in this, ought to ask for a formal legal opinion from Herrera - and Herrera ought to say, unequivocally, that IRV is the law of the land and that all city agencies should operate on the presumption that there will be only one fall election, in November, conducted under the new system.
The issue ought to be pretty straightforward: The voters in 2002 approved a City Charter amendment mandating that all elections, starting in November 2003, use the IRV system. It's up to the San Francisco Department of Elections to implement that mandate.
The fact that the city is having problems getting a final contract with its elections software vendor, and that the vendor may be months away from creating a working system, really makes no difference: if the computers don't work on Election Day, the votes have to be counted by hand - however slow and expensive that process may be.
But as Alex Posorske reports on page 13, elections director John Arntz admitted this week that he's also making plans for a traditional December runoff election. It's not clear why that should even be necessary - or how it could possibly be legal.
Herrera's been a bit squishy on this issue. The city attorney hasn't issued a formal legal opinion on the matter but has released a statement saying that "it's certainly reasonable for the City to develop contingency plans [for a December election] - even while remaining hopeful that we won't need them."
That leaves a huge opening for IRV opponents, and Herrera needs to close it. Sup. Tom Ammiano, who is running for mayor and has the highest stake in this, ought to ask for a formal legal opinion from Herrera - and Herrera ought to say, unequivocally, that IRV is the law of the land and that all city agencies should operate on the presumption that there will be only one fall election, in November, conducted under the new system.