Loading...
06-22-04 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA June 22, 2004 6:30 p.m. Conference Room 227 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting 4. Consideration of Communications 5. Old Business • Board of Equalization • Instant Runoff Elections 6. New Business 7. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the April 27, 2004 Charter Commission meeting • Resolution 2004-01 • Ordinance 2004-925 • Information about Instant Runoff Elections o Frequently asked questions about Instant Runoff Voting o Sample ballot prepared by Vermont Secretary of State o IRV Flow Chart o Example of IRV vote counting UNAPPROVED Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission April 27, 2004 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 27. Present were Commission members: Dorothy Boen, David Day, John Frane, Roger Gross, Marjorie Hance, Fran Hesch, Charles Kritzler, and James Shirley. Assistant City Manager Jim Genellie was also present. The meeting was brought to order at 6:30 p.m. Election of Chair and Vice -Chair. Commissioner Frane was nominated for Chair and Commissioner Hesch was nominated for Vice -Chair. The Commission voted unanimously to elect John Frane as Chair and Fran Hesch as Vice -Chair. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. Commissioner Shirley moved and Commissioner Boen seconded a motion to approve the minutes of April 29, 2003. The Commission voted to approve the minutes. Commissioners Day and Gross abstained. Reports. There were no official reports. Communications There were no communications. Old Business There was no old business New Business Board of Equalization Mr. Genellie explained this issue regarding Section 7.03 of the Charter. On January 6, 2004 the City Council voted to turn over the duties of the Board of Review to Hennepin County for a period of three years. Section 7.03 states: "Section 7.03. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. The Council shall constitute the Board of Equalization and shall meet as such in the usual place for holding Council Meetings not later than June 1 of each year to equalize the assessments according to law, or at such other adjourned meetings as it may designate." Although City Attorney Wynn Curtiss stated that the Council had the authority under state law to transfer the Board of Equalization duties, Mr. Genellie recommended that the following language be added to the beginning of Section 7.03: Unless the City Council provides otherwise as permitted by law. The Commission discussed the proper role of the City Council in determining property values. Some Commissioners thought that the Council should retain some responsibility in the process. - 1 - UNAPPROVED Other Commissioners said the City Council should have the flexibility to decide whether to continue to act in this capacity especially since the assessing fiulction has transferred to Hennepin County. Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Hance seconded the motion to amend the Charter to add the recommended language to Section 7.03. The motion was approved unanimously. Ranked Ballot Voting Commissioner Hesch explained how Ranked Ballot Voting or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) works. The City of Hopkins had a version of ranked ballot voting from the adoption of the City Charter in 1947 until 1959. Commissioner Hesch explained that the Federal Govenmment has made money available to the states to upgrade their elections through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA.) The current Secretary of State, Mary Kiffineyer, is not on record as favoring the purchase of voting machines that can be programmed for IRV. Commissioner Hesch wanted the Charter Commission to consider amending the Charter to allow the election of the Mayor through IRV. Several Commissioners thought that it might make voting more complex. Other Commissioners felt that it might be a worthwhile system. The entire Commission felt that more information was needed. Commissioner Hesch said that she would provide additional information at the next Commission meeting. The Commission voted to meet again on Tuesday, June 22 at 6:30 p.m. Adi ournment. Commissioner Hance moved and Commissioner Gross seconded the motion to adjoun-i. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. -2- CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota CHARTER COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2004-01 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE Whereas, the Hopkins Charter Commission has the authority under Minnesota Statute, Section 410.12, subdivision 7 to recommend amendments to the City Charter; and Whereas, the Commission has determined that the Hopkins City Charter should be amended; Now Therefore be it resolved by the Hopkins Charter Commission that the Hopkins Municipal Charter be amended by Ordinance 2004-925 enacted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins pursuant to Minnesota Statute 410.12. Passed and adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Hopkins Charter Commission held at Hopkins City Hall on June 22, 2004. ATTEST: James A. Genellie, Secretary Hopkins Charter Commission CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 2004-925 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION PURSUANT TO M.S.A. CHAPTER 410.12, SUBD. 7 The City Council of the City of Hopkins, upon recommendation of and from the Hopkins City Charter Commission does hereby ordain and thus amend and adopt the following changes, deletions, and amendments of or from the following chapters and sections of the Hopkins City Charter: Section 1. Section 7.03, is amended as follows: Section 7.03. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. Unless the City Council provides otherwise as permitted by law, the Council shall constitute the Board of Equalization and shall meet as such in the usual place for holding Council Meetings not later than June 1 of each year to equalize the assessments according to law, or at such other adjourned meetings as it may designate. Section 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be ninety days after publication. First reading: August 3, 2004 Second reading: August 17, 2004 Date of Publication: August 26, 2004 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: November 24, 2004 Im ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk Gene Maxwell, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date Center for Voting and Democracy Frequently Asked Questions About Instant Runoff Voting What is instant runoff voting? Instant runoff voting is a method of electing a single winner. It provides an alternative to plurality and runoff elections. In a plurality election, the highest vote getter wins even if s/he receives less than 50% of the vote. In a runoff election, two candidates advance to a runoff if no candidate receives more than 50% in the first round. How does it work? Voters rank candidates in order of choice: 1, 2, 3 and so on. It takes a majority to win. If anyone receives a majority of the first choice votes, that candidate is elected. If not, the last place candidate is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again, but this time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. With modern voting equipment, all of the counting and recounting takes place rapidly and automatically. IRV acts like a series of runoff elections in which one candidate is eliminated each election. Each time a candidate is eliminated, all voters get to choose among the remaining candidates. This continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. Isn't this too complex for the voter? No. All the voter has to do is rank one or more candidates. It's like renting a video or picking an ice cream: What video (or flavor) do you want? That's your first choice. If they don't have that video (or flavor), what would you like? That's your second choice. If they don't have that, what's your third pick? That's all there is to it. It's as easy as 1-2-3. Doesn't this give extra votes to supporters of defeated candidates? No. In each round, every voter's ballot counts for exactly one candidate. In this respect, it's just like a two -round runoff election. You vote for your favorite candidate in the first round. If your candidate advances to the second round, you keep supporting that candidate. If not, you get to pick among the remaining candidates. In IRV candidates gets eliminated one at a time, and each time, all voters get to select among the remaining candidates. At each step of the ballot counting, every voter has exactly one vote for a continuing candidate. That's why the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of IRV. Does IRV eliminate "spoilers" and vote -splitting? Yes. In multiple -candidate races, like-minded constituencies such as Latinos, liberals, conservatives, etc. can split their vote among their own competing candidates, allowing a candidate with less overall support to prevail. IRV allows those voters to rank all of their candidates and watch as votes transfer to their candidate with the most support. In partisan races, IRV prevents the possibility of a third party candidate "spoiling" the race by taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect the other. www.fairvote.org Center for Voting and Democracy Does IRV save money? Yes. Traditional two -round, "delayed" runoffs are common around the country. IRV halves the cost of those elections because it determines a majority winner in a single election. Before adopting IRV, for example, San Francisco spent as much as $2 million on each election in its delayed runoff, and statewide runoffs in places such as Texas cost far more. In addition, many states and cities use two rounds of special elections to fill vacated seats and instead could elect a popular winner with IRV in one round of voting. In such situations IRV also reduces the reliance of candidates on special interest donors because they only have to campaign and raise money for one election rather than two. Does IRV affect voter turnout? Yes. Turnout generally increases. IRV gives every voter incentive to participate because your vote still counts even if your first choice candidate is defeated. Also, since IRV only requires one election, the decisive election takes place when turnout is highest, typically November. Does IRV affect campaign debate? Yes. Because IRV may require second and third choice votes to win, candidates have incentive to focus on the issues, to attract voters to their positions and to form coalitions. Negative campaigning and personal attacks are much less effective in an IRV election. Where is IRV used? Many places. Ireland uses IRV to elects its president, Australia to elect its House of Representatives, London to elect its mayor, San Francisco to elect its major city offices such as mayor, Utah Republicans to nominate congressional nominees at its state convention, many major universities for their student government elections and the American Political Science Association to elect its president. Literally hundreds of jurisdictions, organizations and corporations use IRV to elect leaders. Whom does IRV advantage? IRV advantages the majority, since it ensures that a minority of voters can never defeat a candidate supported by a majority. It also gives the voter more power, since s/he can express a range of choices. Can the voting equipment handle IRV? Modern voting equipment, such as optical scanners and computer touch screens, can handle IRV at no additional cost. Older technologies such as punch cards and lever machines cannot handle IRV, so it doesn't make sense to adopt IRV until new equipment is purchased. In these cases, we recommend legislation authorizing the use of IRV when the equipment is available. For reasons unrelated to IRV, the trend in voting equipment is away from the older technologies, so more and more jurisdictions are acquiring equipment that can handle IRV. www.fairvote.org 2 Center for Voting and Democracy Why don't more places use IRV? Prior to the advent of modern vote counting equipment, IRV required a time-consuming and costly hand count. Some jurisdictions that used IRV in statewide primaries found that they rarely had plurality (less than majority) winners, so IRV seemed unnecessary. With today's diversity and proliferation of parties and candidates, low plurality winners are more common, and hand counts are unnecessary. Who opposes IRV? Little organized opposition to IRV exists. Election officials are understandably cautious about a system that may increase their workload, and some incumbents fear any change to the system that elected them. If you can win an election under a plurality or runoff system, however, the odds are that you would also win under IRV. The exceptions are rare but can be important. Examples include several recent House races in New Mexico, where Green Party candidates threw races to Republicans, and state legislative races in Alaska in which Libertarians and Alaskan Independent Party candidates knocked off Republicans. Some political minorities may believe that they can only win representation in a plurality election. Such groups may oppose IRV, but of course, in such situations, a larger groups stands to gain representation by IRV. www.fairvote.org 3 OFFICIAL GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT NOVEMBER 7, 2000 1. To vote for a person whose name is printed on the ballot, fill in the oval in the first -choice column to the right of the name of the person. 2. For State and Federal offices you may also indicate a second or third choice, in case your first -choice candidate is eliminated in a runoff, by filling in a circle in the second or third -choice column to the right of the first -choice oval. 3. Marking a second or third choice cannot help defeat your first -choice candidate. 4. To vote for a person not listed on the ballot, write the candidate's name on the line provided AND fill in the appro- priate oval or circle. 1 st 2nd 3rd For US Senator Choice Choice Choice Vote for not more than ONE first choice 1st 2nd 3rd For Governor Choice Choice Choice Vote for not more than ONE first choice HUGH DOUGLAS, Burlington Libertarian 0 0 0 HOWARD B. DEAN, Burlington Democratic CD 0 0 PATRICK LEAHY, Burlington Democratic 0 0 0 RUTH DWYER, E. Thetford Republican 0 0 0 BOB (DR. BOB) MELAMEDE, 0 South Burlington Vermont Grassroots 0 0 CHRISTOPHER P. MORRISON, 0 South Royalton Libertarian 0 0 FRED H. TUTTLE, Tunbridge Republican 0 0 0 ANTHONY POLLINA, Middlesex Progressive 0 0 0 BARTHOLOMEW VANCOVINGTON, CD Brattleboro Independent 0 0 Write-in 0 0 0 1st 2nd 3rd For Lieutenant Governor Choice Choice Choice Vote for not more than ONE first choice DAVID LOWRY, Burlington Progressive 0 0 0 Write-in O 0 0 1st 2nd 3rd For Representative to Congress Choice Choice Choice Vote for not more than ONE first choice JANICE CAMBRY, Montpelier Democratic (�D 0 0 ARMANDO ENZIO, Burlington Independent 0 0 0 MATTHEW "MATT" GREGORY, O Jericho Liberty Union 0 0 JANICE CAMBRY, Montpelier Democratic 0 0 0 ARMANDO ENZIO, Burlington Independent 0 0 0 JASON T. HANSON, St. Albans Republican 0 0 0 EDWARD M. LAFORCE, E. Wallingford 0 Progressive 0 0 MATTHEW "MATT" GREGORY, 0 0 0 Jericho Liberty Union JASON T. HANSON, St. Albans Republican (D 0 0 Write-in (D 0 0 EDWARD M. LAFORCE, E. Wallingford C) Progressive 0 0 Write-in C) 0 0 SAMPLE Instant Runoff Voting Ballot Count Flow Chart Count Voters' First Choices Recount All Ballots Does One Candidate Have a YES 1 Winner! Count Finished In each round, your ballot counts for your favorite candidate who is still in the race. Instant Run-off Voting for executive offices -Goal: assure majority rule .,-Voters rank candidates in order of choice 2-Count first choices cast for each candidate ❑ Bob Lund ❑ Jan Fritz ❑ Willi.Broti,n ❑ Rosa Santos Instant Run-off Voting for executive offices .,-Candidate with fewest first choice votes is eliminated —those votes ;o to candidates listed as second choice on each ballot Lund Fritz Bromm SAos 14 11 9 6 +3 +2 +l 17 13 10 Instant Run-off Voting for executive offices zwCandidate with fewest first choice votes is eliminated Lund Fritz Brawn Santos 14 11 9 6 Instant Run-off Voting for executive offices z►,Process continues until one candidate wins with majority of votes Lund Fritz BI;Zyn SMtos 14 11 9 6e +3 +2 +1 17 13 10 +2 +S 19 21