The Vermont attorney general advised the Legislature on Monday that a constitutional amendment would be necessary before the state could use instant runoff voting to elect the governor, lieutenant governor or treasurer.

"Voter approval of a constitutional amendment is legally required before the runoff system can be applied to elections for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer," wrote Attorney General William Sorrell to the chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee.

Under an instant runoff system, voters would mark ballots with not only their first choice for governor, but also their second choice. If no candidate received a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes would be eliminated. The second choices on these ballots would be added to the tallies for the other candidates, then the ballots would be recounted to see whether any candidate won a majority.

The current procedure for electing the governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer is outlined in the state Constitution and requires a candidate to receive a majority of the votes to win. When no candidate receives 50 percent of the votes, the Legislature picks the winner from the top three candidates. Different rules apply for the secretary of state and auditor.

This past fall, no candidate for governor or lieutenant governor received a majority of the votes. The Legislature picked the winners in January, selecting in each case the candidate who received the most votes. Gov. Jim Douglas had received 45 percent of the votes in November. Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie received 42 percent.

Lawmakers could have legally selected the second or third place finishers-- a possibility that worried many voters and prompted calls for change.

The alternatives to the current system include instant runoff voting and a constitutional amendment that would allow the candidates with the most votes to win -- even if they received fewer than 50 percent of the votes.
Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, proposed that the Legislature pass a law adopting an instant runoff system. She said Monday that she disagrees with the attorney general about the need for a constitutional amendment.

Her bill, she said, would make the results from an instant runoff "advisory." The Legislature would have the final say, which would meet the requirements of the Constitution.

"If we all had the information of what the results would have been of people voting this way, we could ignore it," she said, "but I wouldn't want to be running in the next election doing that."

Bartlett sees instant runoff voting as a way to show voters that their choices matter. She said she worries that changing to a plurality system --in which the person with the most votes wins even with less than a majority -- could give an office to someone most voters opposed. That would sour them on the election process.

Sen. John Bloomer, R-Rutland, argues that instant runoff voting is too complicated. "Any potential gain is overwhelmed by the confusion it would cause."
 
He has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer to win by plurality as long as they received at least 40 percent of the votes cast. If no candidate received 40 percent, his amendment calls for the top two candidates to compete in a runoff election on the first Tuesday in December.

Sen. William Doyle, R-Washington, is chairman of the Government Operations Committee, which would consider any bills and constitutional amendments that would change election procedures. He prefers to move to a plurality system to elect the governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer, because that is the general practice for all other elected offices. "I think it has served our state well," he said.

He also prefers a constitutional amendment to a law, he said. "If you make the change statutory, you could have a new system every two years."

Amending the Constitution would take at least five years. Two legislatures would have to pass the proposed constitutional change. Voters would have their say in 2006, Doyle said. The first election run under a new system would be in 2008.

Sen. Jim Condos, D-Chittenden, vice chairman of the Government Operations Committee, said he has received a lot of messages about instant runoff voting. "Whether it is the right thing or not, I don't know," he said. "But I think we owe it to Vermont voters to air this thing." The Vermont attorney general advised the Legislature on Monday that a constitutional amendment would be necessary before the state could use instant runoff voting to elect the governor, lieutenant governor or treasurer.
"Voter approval of a constitutional amendment is legally required before the runoff system can be applied to elections for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer," wrote Attorney General William Sorrell to the chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee.

Under an instant runoff system, voters would mark ballots with not only their first choice for governor, but also their second choice. If no candidate received a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes would be eliminated. The second choices on these ballots would be added to the tallies for the other candidates, then the ballots would be recounted to see whether any candidate won a majority.

The current procedure for electing the governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer is outlined in the state Constitution and requires a candidate to receive a majority of the votes to win. When no candidate receives 50 percent of the votes, the Legislature picks the winner from the top three candidates. Different rules apply for the secretary of state and auditor.

This past fall, no candidate for governor or lieutenant governor received a majority of the votes. The Legislature picked the winners in January, selecting in each case the candidate who received the most votes. Gov. Jim Douglas had received 45 percent of the votes in November. Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie received 42 percent.

Lawmakers could have legally selected the second or third place finishers-- a possibility that worried many voters and prompted calls for change.

The alternatives to the current system include instant runoff voting and a constitutional amendment that would allow the candidates with the most votes to win -- even if they received fewer than 50 percent of the votes.
Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, proposed that the Legislature pass a law adopting an instant runoff system. She said Monday that she disagrees with the attorney general about the need for a constitutional amendment.

Her bill, she said, would make the results from an instant runoff "advisory." The Legislature would have the final say, which would meet the requirements of the Constitution.

"If we all had the information of what the results would have been of people voting this way, we could ignore it," she said, "but I wouldn't want to be running in the next election doing that."

Bartlett sees instant runoff voting as a way to show voters that their choices matter. She said she worries that changing to a plurality system --in which the person with the most votes wins even with less than a majority -- could give an office to someone most voters opposed. That would sour them on the election process.

Sen. John Bloomer, R-Rutland, argues that instant runoff voting is too complicated. "Any potential gain is overwhelmed by the confusion it would cause."
 
He has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer to win by plurality as long as they received at least 40 percent of the votes cast. If no candidate received 40 percent, his amendment calls for the top two candidates to compete in a runoff election on the first Tuesday in December.

Sen. William Doyle, R-Washington, is chairman of the Government Operations Committee, which would consider any bills and constitutional amendments that would change election procedures. He prefers to move to a plurality system to elect the governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer, because that is the general practice for all other elected offices. "I think it has served our state well," he said.

He also prefers a constitutional amendment to a law, he said. "If you make the change statutory, you could have a new system every two years."

Amending the Constitution would take at least five years. Two legislatures would have to pass the proposed constitutional change. Voters would have their say in 2006, Doyle said. The first election run under a new system would be in 2008.

Sen. Jim Condos, D-Chittenden, vice chairman of the Government Operations Committee, said he has received a lot of messages about instant runoff voting. "Whether it is the right thing or not, I don't know," he said. "But I think we owe it to Vermont voters to air this thing."