Boise City Council Memo To: Council Members From: Maryanne Jordan CC: Jade Riley; Mayor David Bieter Date: April 6, 2006 Re: ORDINANCE CHANGE: CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS All: Attached is the draft from legal, which would eliminate the majority vote for Council seats, and eliminate run-off elections. Both of these policies are replaced with the requirement that a candidate achieve a simple plurality. I am asking that the Clerk s office schedule this proposed ordinance for the public hearing process. This ordinance has been prepared as directed by David Eberle s unanimous consent request that City staff prepare an ordinance removing the run-off provision. The second portion of Council Member Eberle s consent request was that the City Clerk work with the Ada County Clerk s Office to develop an RFP for implementing an IRV system. The Clerk has suggested that this is most feasible after the May primary election. Please also see the attached report from the City Clerk s office explaining Instant Run-Off Voting. Maryanne Jordan Council President 1
Boise Municipal Code ORDINANCE NO. BY THE COUNCIL: BISTERFELDT, CLEGG, EBERLE, JORDAN, SHEALY, AND TIBBS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 07, SECTION 07 OF THE BOISE CITY CODE TO DESIGNATE THAT A PLURALITY VOTE IS REQUIRED FOR A CITY COUNCIL SEAT AND ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION WHERE NO CANDIDATE OBTAINS A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOISE CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Title 1, Chapter 07, Section 07 of the Boise City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1-07-07 MAJORITY PLURALITY VOTE REQUIRED FOR CITY COUNCIL SEAT - RUNOFF ELECTION IF NO MAJORITY A candidate running for a City Council seat for the Boise City Council shall be elected by a majority (more than fifty percent) plurality (the greatest number) of the votes cast. In the event that no candidate running for a designated seat receives a majority of the votes cast, there shall be a runoff election between the two (2) candidates running for a designated seat who received the highest number of votes cast. Such runoff election shall be conducted as in the general election in a manner and at such time, within thirty (30) days of the general election, as prescribed by the City and shall be exempt from the limitation upon elections provided in 34-106, Idaho Code. The first notice of election shall be made by the City Clerk not less than twenty (20) days next preceding any runoff election, and the designation of polling places shall be made by the City Clerk no less than twenty (20) days next preceding any runoff election. Section 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after is passage, approval and publication. PASSED by the Council of the City of Boise, Idaho, this day of, 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of the City of Boise, Idaho, this day of, 2006. APPROVED: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK Page 1 of 1
Date: February 13, 2006 To: From: Mayor and City Council Annette P. Mooney City Clerk Meeting: February 22, 2006 Re: City of Boise Runoff Election Study The City of Boise has had one runoff election (2003) since the legislation was amended to allow for runoffs. This election in 2003 cost the taxpayers approximately $70,000. This study reviews Boise City s voting records; other Idaho cities voting records; and background information on a runoff voting method that does not require another election to accomplish similar results. As with almost any process there are negative issues surrounding it. Following is some that have been identified by Robert Richie, Executive Director of the Center for Voting and Democracy: Problems with Majority Voting It allows candidates to win with a narrow bank of support. It creates opportunities for spoiler candidacies. It creates incentives for negative campaigning. Defects in Two-Round Runoffs Candidates must have money for a second campaign, with little time to raise funds. Taxpayers must pay for administration of two elections. Exhibit A is an assessment of the 2004 Ranked-Choice Voting in San Francisco by the Public Research Institute.
Background The Boise City Code was amended May 2003 to allow for runoff elections when a candidate did not receive a majority vote. The first and only runoff election, since the Boise City Code was amended occurred in December 2003 and cost approximately $70,000. This sounds like an exorbitant amount but nationally the election costs range between $1-2 per registered voter. For the 2003 election we had 98,385 registered voters. If we used the $1-2 national average, Boise City s cost would have ranged from $93,000 to $187,000. Our costs are lower due to the City s conservative management of election resources and a good friend of the City, Dave Navarro, Ada County Clerk. Even though our costs are less than the national average, runoff elections are still expensive both for the municipality and for the candidate. State Code mandates a quick turn around between elections of approximately 30 days. This short turn around curtails the amount of time to get the candidate s message out and limits the candidate s ability to get election contributions to offset the cost of the runoff election campaign. This can be a concern both to the candidate and to the municipality since runoff election outcomes are frequently the same for General election and for the Runoff election. Following is the 2003 results of the runoff for Seat 3: General Election Results Skip Anderson 18.68% Glen Corbeil 5.48% David Eberle 35.67% Paula Forney 35.09% Gene Summa 5.09% Runoff Election Results David Eberle 73.73% Paula B. Forney 26.27% As noted the lead candidate won in both races. Idaho cities have experienced very few runoff elections but the Clerks (Idaho cities election officials) said their experience shows similar results as Boise City and national city elections (1) fewer voters turned out for the runoff election while (2) the leading vote getter in the initial election usually wins the runoff election According to Association of Idaho City s survey, there are 7 Idaho cities that have passed ordinances to hold runoff elections. Following are the results:
Cities in Idaho Runoff Elections Statistics CITY YES/NO RUNOFF ELECTION PROVISION SEAT USED RUNOFF RESULTS DIFFERENT FROM GENERAL ELECTION Blackfoot Yes Mayor No Boise Yes Council & Yes No Mayor Eagle Yes Mayor (only) No Ketchum No Council (only) Yes No (Rescinded 2003) Mountain Yes Mayor Yes No Home Nampa Yes Mayor (only) Yes No Pocatello Yes Mayor (only) Yes Yes once since 1983 How Frequently Would Boise City have had Runoff Elections? Boise City Election Results for Twenty Years (1985 2005) Year Number of Candidates For Council Would There Have Been A Runoff for Council? Number of Candidat es for Mayor Would There Have Been a Runoff for Mayor? 2005 Seat 2 Seat 4 Seat 6 (2) (2) (2) 2003 Seat 1 Seat 3 Seat 5 Seat 6 (3) (5) (2) (3) 2001 Seat 2 Seat 4 Seat 6 (3) (3) (3) 1999 Seat 1 Seat 3 Seat 5 (2) (1) (4) No 0 No Yes Seat 3 5 No No 7 No No 0 No
1997 Seat 2 Seat 4 Seat 6 (3) (3) (1) 1995 Seat 1 Seat 3 Seat 5 (2) (2) (3) 1993 Seat 2 Seat 4 Seat 6 (1) (3) (1) 1991 Seat 1 Seat 3 Seat 5 (3) (4) (12) 1989 Seat 2 Seat 4 Seat 6 (2) (1) (2) 1987 Seat 1 Seat 3 Seat 5 (1) (2) (3) 1985 Prior to Designated Seats 3 top vote recipients won Yes Seat 2 2 No No 0 No No 4 No No 0 No No 1 No Yes Seats 3 & 5 0 No Alternative Types of Runoff Elections Instant runoff voting (IRV), ranked-choice, or ranked order elections is an alternative to having a second election. This type of election is more common outside of the United States. This system elects the mayor of London, the president of Ireland, the House of Representatives in Australia. It is often called the money-saving reform that gives voters more choices and solves the spoiler problem by allowing voters to rank candidates (1, 2, and 3). This type of voting may prove to encourage a higher voter turnout and to eliminate the election costs that Boise City experienced in its 2003 runoff election. Does this form of election encourage a greater turnout? There are mixed answers on this but the answer is probably very little, if any. In voting studies completed by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, she concluded that the emergence and disappearance of local issues and candidates appear to have had more to do with the act of voting than did the form of the ballot. On November 2, 2004, San Francisco voters used Ranked-Choice voting for 7 seats on the city council (called the Board of Supervisors). Exhibit A. An Assessment of Rank- Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2004 Election Preliminary Report dated December 2004. A city with even more experience is Cambridge, Massachusetts. It has used instant runoff elections since the 1940s. The Cambridge election supervisor indicated that the city s population was so well acquainted with that type of election that they had no issues with it. Equipment/Software Needs As a result of the controversial 2000 presidential election and passage of the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act, the United States is rapidly modernizing election equipment. In fact it is affecting us in Ada County. The company that the City purchased punch cards since the early 1980s recently closed its punch card division.
Modern voting equipment that uses optical scanners and computer touch screens can handle instant runoff voting with a one-time upgrade of software. Recently, Cambridge Massachusetts (population 101,355) spent $40,000 a majority of it paying for a onetime software purchase. It is anticipated as jurisdictions modernize their election equipment that this is an opportune time to consider adopting instant runoff voting; the election literature indicates that there should be a savings realized by purchasing new equipment that has the capacity to use a ranked-choice system. For San Francisco s first instant runoff election they used ESS software and equipment. Currently they are converting to Sequoia. One of their election supervisors indicated that they would be selling their used equipment/software. Legal Issues These seem to be easily overcome with an amendment to the Boise City Code. Benefits Instant runoff voting corrects the defects found in plurality and runoff elections. It is recommended by Robert s Rules of Order and is a proven system that has been used for more than a century in major elections around the world. Election related costs are minimal for both the municipality and for the candidates. How It Works The count begins with the sorting of ballots by the first preference shown on each valid ballot. That is the NUMBER 1 vote on each ballot. This is generally known as the "First Count". Any candidates who reach the necessary quota with Number 1 votes are declared elected. Any extra ballots they receive beyond the quota are redistributed to the candidates marked next in preference (the number 2 preference) on those excess ballots. The count continues with the elimination of those candidates receiving fewer than fifty votes in the first count. Their ballots are redistributed to the other candidates according to the next preference marked. After each distribution, the candidate now having the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his/her ballots redistributed to the next indicated preference (number 2,3,4 etc.) As candidates reach the quota through the addition of redistributed ballots to their totals, they are declared elected and no further ballots are transferred to them.
Summary At this time no city is conducting instant run off elections in Idaho. The ones that have runoff provisions provide a separate runoff election when one is required. All of the election officials for these communities felt that the runoff elections costs were the same for the general as for the run off election. Pocatello is the only city that has experienced a different outcome than the leading candidate in the general election winning the second election also. They felt that this was because of a spoiler candidate in the race. Voter turnout is significantly lower in the second election round because voters must pay attention to two campaigns and go to the polls twice. Also runoffs do not correct plurality voting s defects; these defects can still thwart majority rule, create opportunities for spoiler candidacies and promote negative campaigning. Runoff elections do provide benefits. Within the last 20 years, at least, one of Boise City s races could have had another result. If the community wants to continue to provide for a runoff election but do it without extra campaign costs for candidates and extra taxpayer demands, this is the time to start to plan for that change. Modern technology makes it easy to tabulate this type of election. Boise City would not be test case because several U.S. cities are using equipment and software for ranked-choice voting. It is predicted that instant runoff voting will spread quickly as an improvement over the traditional two-round runoffs. Now is the time to discuss with the Ada County Clerk his plan for replacing his current equipment within the next few years. Since the city runs a general election only once every two years, it still seems a viable option to work out an agreement to include in his formal equipment bid the option for a ranked-choice or instant run-off voting software purchase.