Loading...
04-28-09 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA April 28, 2009 6:30 p.m. Hopkins Center for the Arts Conference Room 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. 4.Reports. 5.Consideration of Communications 6.Unfinished Business Instant Runoff Elections 7.New Business Establishing the size of the Charter Commission 8.Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: Charter Commission Roster Minutes of the April 28, 2008 Charter Commission meeting Instant Runoff Voting Memo Status Update on IRV Lawsuit Ranked Choice Voting Implementation "Instant run-off ruling tests Minneapolis' resolve" Minneapolis Ranked Choice Voting Ordinance HF No. 742 2009 Charter Amendments 2008 Annual Report CHARTER COMMISSION March 24, 2009 Name Term Term Expires Jannina Aristy First 3/10/2012 Dorothy Boen Third 1/6/2011 David Day Second 1/6/2011 Liz Dorn First 3/10/2012 Roger Gross Third 1/6/2011 Fran Hesch Second 4/7/2010 Karen Jensen First 10/20/2009 Roger Johnson Second 8/26/2009 Steve Lewis Second 1/6/2011 Jerre Miller First 9/26/2008 Emily Wallace-Jackson First 3/5/2012 Chair:Emily Wallace-Jackson Vice-Chair:Karen Jensen Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission April 29, 2008 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 29. Present were Commission members Dorothy Boen, Roger Gross, Fran Hesch, Roger Johnson, Steve Lewis, Emily Wallace-Jackson, David Day, Karen Jensen, Jerre Miller, and Jannina Aristy. The meeting was brought to order at 6:37 p.m. by the Chair of the Commission, Roger Gross. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved and Commissioner Jensen seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2007 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Commissioner Hesch nominated Commissioner Wallace-Jackson for Chair. Commissioner Day seconded the nomination. Commissioner Wallace-Jackson was elected Chair by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Miller nominated Commissioner Jensen for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Lewis seconded the nomination. Commissioner Jensen was elected Vice-Chair by a unanimous vote. Chair Wallace-Jackson presided for the balance of the meeting. Old Business Instant Runoff Elections The City Clerk gave a brief summary of the Legislative and Rules Committee of the Ranked Choice Voting Issues Group, which completed the task of developing proposed rules for IRV.The Group submitted draft legislation to the House and Senate election committees. The proposed rules were presented to the Elections Committee of Minneapolis. Minneapolis staff was directed to begin the process for a request for proposal for election equipment that would accommodate IRV. In response to the Commission’s request for information at the last meeting, the City Clerk reported that of the 854 cities in Minnesota, approximately 788 of those cities elect members of their councils at large with multiple seat elections. Commissioner Hesch reviewed the work of the Ranked Choice Voting Issues Group, Technical Advisory Committee’s work and hearings that were held regarding RCV.Commissioner Hesch related the difficulty of convincing the Committee to allow Cities with multiple seat elections to choose other Ranked Choice methods for their ballots. The consensus of the Charter Commission was to request that the City Clerk contact the City of Hendersonville NC, to obtain documentation of the method of voting that is used in Hendersonville NC. Members of the Commission would like to have that information emailed to them. Chair Wallace-Jackson would then determine if another meeting should be called to discuss the method and commence with a mock election using the method that Hendersonville NC uses. Commissioner Lewis moved and Commissioner Jensen seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:38 p.m. \IRV Charter Memo 0904.doc Department of Administration To:Charter Commission From:Jim Genellie Date:March 24, 2009 Subject:Instant Runoff Voting Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota continue to move forward on Instant Runoff Voting. The Minneapolis City Council has adopted an ordinance that specifies the manner in which Instant Runoff Voting or Ranked Choice Voting will take place. IRV in Minneapolis survived an initial court case in January. The plaintiff, Minnesota Voters Alliance, has appealed this decision. It is possible that the Minnesota Supreme Court could decide this case in time for the 2009 municipal election in Minneapolis. However, if the case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, IRV may have to be postponed in Minneapolis.(See "Instant run-off tests Minneapolis' resolve" and February 3, 2009 memo from the Minneapolis City Attorney) Meanwhile, there are bills in front of the Minnesota Legislature to allow cities to use Instant Runoff Voting. It is not known at this time whether these bills will pass or, if they do pass, whether they will also face legal challenges. Both the resolution of the Minneapolis lawsuit and any legislation passed by the Minnesota Legislature will likely settle most of the legal issues around Instant Runoff Voting.Neither of these actions, however, will provide much guidance regarding the issue of multiple candidates running for multiple offices. The method which Minneapolis proposes is similar to that proposed by FairVote Minnesota. The Hopkins Charter Commission has, in the past, opposed using this method. The current bills before the legislature are silent on the topic of multiple candidates running for multiple offices. The bills do allow home rule charter cities to set up their own methods.There are problems with Hopkins using its own method for dealing with multiple candidates running for multiple offices. Any automated system that Minneapolis may eventually create or purchase may not be able to be used in Hopkins. This could require Hopkins to purchase its own software or to hand count ballots. Additionally there could be an independent legal challenge to the Hopkins method. Status Update on IRV Lawsuit "Instant run-off ruling tests Minneapolis' resolve" Minneapolis Ranked Choice Voting Ordinance HF No. 742 1 Request for City Council Committee Action From the Department of the City Clerk Date: February 5, 2009 To: Elections Committee Subject: Ranked Choice Voting Implementation Recommendation: Motion to receive and file reports Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, Assistant City Clerk/Director of Elections Approved by: Steve Ristuben, City Clerk Status of IRV Implementation The position of Mayor and all City Council positions are up for election in 2009, along with nine Park Board and two Board of Estimate and Taxation positions. The City Charter calls for our election to be run using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for the first time. Several IRV implementation activities have been completed or decided, including the adoption of the ordinance. Many other administrative activities are yet to be undertaken. These include finalization of the ballot design and marking instructions, development of hand count procedures, equipment and process testing plan and protocol, creation of a results reporting component, beta testing in the form of a demonstration election, development of a communications plan, and conduct of a city-wide voter education program. Timelines Two timelines have been attached to this report. The first illustrates activities and a proposed timeline for conducting an IRV election. This is an aggressive timeline. The second is a timeline illustrating activities normally undertaken in a primary/general election scenario. We are preparing to move forward on a dual track - undertaking IRV implementation activities while at the same time preparing a contingency plan which includes a primary election. Though no legal deadline for deciding whether a primary will be held has passed, there are many administrative processes that need to be undertaken during the month of February to prepare for a municipal primary. The need to move forward with these activities is magnified by the size of our jurisdiction. 2 Resources Reports provided to Council in 2006 and 2007 called for additional department staff or a consultant to assist with implementation at a cost of approximately $75,000. That amount was appropriated in the 2009 budget process and we are considering how an RFP for consultant services should be structured. At the same time department budget reduction proposals call for elimination of one full time election department position. If the Council agrees that we should continue to move forward with IRV implementation for 2009, this staff reduction should be reconsidered. Voter Education Program An important component to the success of IRV will be adequate voter education on the new methodology. Especially considering lessons learned through examination of ballots during the 2008 Senate recount, we know that extensive training individualized for targeted populations will be required. We are very reluctant to undertake the community outreach portion of the voter education process prior to receiving a final decision by the Minnesota Courts. Our concern would be confusion arising from a voting method that could later be invalidated by a higher court. Based on the experience of two similarly large jurisdictions that have implemented IRV, we know how to structure and carry out an effective communications program. We are aware that other jurisdictions have conducted voter education in a shorter time frame, however, planning for the programs began much earlier and funding to ensure complete saturation was not an issue. • San Francisco received final approval just months prior to the election, but planning for the communications program had begun shortly after adoption two years earlier. Their communications program included participation from many staff persons, community groups and advertising agencies who worked together to design the program prior to its roll-out. The majority of education activities took place during the four-month period leading up to the election and cost approximately $750,000. • Pierce County, Washington began their voter education process a full year prior to their election date and used the San Francisco program as their model. Their communication process was derailed by a change in format for the state primary which caused them to revise their communication plan and repeat training that had already been conducted. In the end, their communication program cost just under $250,000. An essential component of our administrative preparation and voter education process will be the conduct of a “demonstration” election which will provide a real world opportunity to determine weak points in the process, materials, forms and equipment necessary to conduct an IRV election. In addition to serving as a testing environment, input gathered from the participants will be used to refine the later stages of the voter education program and provide a training opportunity for Election Department staff and Election Judges. The concept of conducting a demonstration election is not new, and is common practice in the State of Minnesota when significant changes to election equipment and procedures occur. Instant run-off ruling tests Minneapolis' resolve A challenge to Minneapolis' new voting system will go to the state Supreme Court but a ruling could miss the deadline to switch to a conventional election. By STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune Last update: March 20, 2009 -11:56 PM Plans to have Minneapolis voters elect city leaders this November by ranking the candidates are locked in a game of chicken with the election calendar. A legal challenge to using ranked-choice voting, often called "instant run-off"voting, means that the final court decisions on whether it's constitutional may not come down until after a legal deadline passes for opting out of using the method this year. Voters approved a charter amendment in 2006 allowing voters to rank city candidates in the order they prefer. A mayoral candidate would need 50 percent to win. If nobody achieved that in first-choice votes, the lowest-polling candidate would be dropped from each successive vote-counting round. The second choice votes of people supporting each dropped candidate would be added to first-choice votes already counted until one candidate hit a majority. Minneapolis would be the first Minnesota city to use that system since Hopkins dropped it more than 50 years ago. The Minnesota Voters Alliance challenged the system in late 2007 on state and federal constitutional grounds. A Hennepin County judge dismissed the case. The alliance appealed and has said it will appeal again if it loses. That could force the city to choose between going ahead with instant-runoff plans and risking an adverse court ruling, or deferring ranked-choice voting for four years. The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the dilemma this week by allowing the appeal to go directly to the state's top court and accelerating the briefing schedule to finish by April 13. It also asked the city when it needs a decision this spring in order to meet the city's deadline for aborting ranked-choice plans for this year. The city will come up with that date by April 6. The charter change gave the City Council an opt-out if the city isn't ready to implement ranked-choice voting, but it must spell out why in an ordinance adopted at least four months before the Nov. 3 city election. A state law also requires that notice of election filings be given two weeks before filings open July 7. Long hang time The council last meets on June 12 before those two windows close, although a special meeting is possible. But because unanimous consent is required to adopt an ordinance without notice at a prior council meeting, the prudent course might be to give that notice at the May 22 council session. A strong majority of the council favors ranked-choice voting and presumably would be loathe to postpone the new method until 2013. A ruling by the state Supreme Court that affirms the trial court decision would lend credence to going ahead with ranked-choice voting. But if either side asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutional issues, that would pose severe timing issues. "I think it's highly unlikely that the United States Supreme Court would want to weigh in with a state issue. It's really our state Constitution and our state statute," said Elizabeth Glidden who chairs the council's Elections Committee. But even that wouldn't prevent the issue from hanging in limbo an uncomfortably long time. Erick Kaardal, an attorney representing the alliance, and City Attorney Susan Segal agreed that the Supreme Court could take at least several months to decide whether to accept the case. The city could go ahead with the new voting system during that period. But it runs the risk of an adverse court decision requiring that it reverse course but leaving insufficient time for the traditional primary-general elections. A worst-case scenario could leave the city without a sitting council, if there wasn't sufficient time to elect new members before current terms expire. That means a gut-check for supporters on the council of ranked-choice voting. "We have our city attorney to advise us on what is the realistic risk," Glidden said. Segal told the council last month that there would be "significant risk" from going ahead before final appeal is decided. The city deleted its traditional primary-general election system from its charter when voters approved ranked-choice voting, which doesn't require a primary. The city could follow state election law. But that would mean that candidates couldn't designate their party or campaign slogan on the ballot, which the city charter allowed. For now, the city is proceeding with ranked-choice voting, while preparing a contingency plan for a traditional election. Election Director Cindy Reichert is planning a May 6 test election of about 600 ballots to check the city's procedures for using and counting ranked-choice ballots. A voter education effort also is planned. Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438 By Glidden Amending Title 8.5 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to Elections by adding a new Chapter 167 relating to Municipal Elections; Rules of Conduct. The City Council of The City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 167 to read as follows: CHAPTER 167. Municipal Elections; Rules of Conduct 167.10. Applicability. This chapter applies to all municipal elections. All provisions of City Charter and Minnesota Statutes pertaining to elections also apply, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this chapter. 167.20. Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section: Batch elimination means a simultaneous defeat of multiple continuing candidates that have no mathematical chance of being elected. Continuing candidate means a candidate who has been neither elected nor defeated. Duplicate ranking occurs when a voter ranks the same candidate at multiple rankings for the office being counted. Exhausted ballot means a ballot that cannot be transferred to a lower ranked candidate because the next ranking is blank or there is more than one (1) candidate given the next ranking for the office being counted. Highest continuing ranking means the ranking on a voter's ballot with the lowest numerical value for a continuing candidate. An overvote occurs when a voter ranks more than one (1) candidate at the same ranking. 2 Partially defective ballot means a ballot that is defective to the extent that the election judges are unable to determine the voter’s intent with respect to the office being counted. Ranked-choice voting means an election method in which voters rank candidates for an office in order of their preference and the ballots are counted in rounds that, in the case of a single-seat election, simulate a series of runoffs until one (1) candidate meets the threshold, or until two (2) candidates remain and the candidate with the greatest number of votes is declared elected. In the case of multiple-seat elections, a winning threshold is calculated, and votes, or fractions thereof, are distributed to candidates according to the preferences marked on each ballot as described in section 167.7 of this ordinance. Ranked-choice voting tabulation center means the place selected for the automatic or manual processing and tabulation of ballots and/or votes. Ranking means the number assigned by a voter to a candidate to express the voter's preference for that candidate. Ranking number one (1) is the highest ranking. A ranking of lower numerical value indicates a greater preference for a candidate than a ranking of higher numerical value. Round means an instance of the sequence of voting tabulation steps established in sections 167.60 and 167.70 of this chapter. Skipped ranking occurs when a voter leaves a ranking blank and ranks a candidate at a subsequent ranking. Surplus means the total number of votes cast for an elected candidate in excess of the threshold. Surplus fraction of a vote means the surplus divided by the total votes cast for the elected candidate, calculated to four (4) decimal places. Surplus fraction of a vote = (Surplus)/(Total votes cast for elected candidate). Threshold means the number of votes sufficient for a candidate to be elected. In any given election, the threshold equals the total votes counted in the first round after removing partially defective ballots, divided by the sum of one (1) plus the number of offices to be filled and adding one (1) to the quotient, disregarding any fractions. Threshold = (Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1) +1. Transfer value means the fraction of a vote that a transferred ballot will contribute to the next ranked continuing candidate on that ballot. The transfer value of a vote cast for an elected candidate is calculated by multiplying the surplus fraction of each vote by its current value. The transfer value of a vote cast for a defeated candidate is the same as its current value. 3 Transferable vote means a vote or a fraction of a vote for a candidate who has been either elected or defeated. Totally defective ballot means a ballot that is defective to the extent that the election judges are unable to determine the voter’s intent for any office on the ballot. An undervote occurs when a voter does not rank any candidates for an office. 167.30. Ballots. (a) Ballot format. (1) When there are three (3) or more qualified candidates, a ballot must allow a voter to rank at least three (3) candidates for each office in order of preference and must also allow the voter to add write-in candidates. (2) A ballot must include instructions to voters that clearly indicates how to mark the ballot so as to be read by the Election Judges conducting the count, or if voting equipment is to be used, so as to be read by the voting equipment used to tabulate results. (3) A ballot must include instructions to voters that clearly indicate how to rank candidates in order of the voter’s preference. (4) A ballot must indicate the number of seats to be elected for each office. (5) A ballot which allows voters to indicate the order of their preference by marking multiple positions for each candidate must include instructions indicating the ranking of each position. (b) Mixed-election method ballots. If elections are held in which ranked-choice voting is used in addition to other methods of voting, the ranked-choice voting and non- ranked-choice voting elections must be on the same ballot card if possible, with ranked- choice voting and non-ranked-choice voting portions clearly separated on the ballot card. If placement of all offices to be elected cannot be placed on a single ballot card, a separate ballot card may be used for those offices to be elected using ranked-choice voting . The City may deviate from the standard ballot order of offices to allow separation of ranked-choice voting and non-ranked-choice voting elections. (c) Ballot format rules The chief election official shall establish administrative rules for ballot format after a voting mechanism has been selected. All rules shall be adopted in accordance with this section. 167.40. Ranked-Choice Voting Tabulation Center. The chief election official shall designate one (1) location to serve as the ranked-choice voting tabulation center. The center must be accessible to the public for the purpose of observing the vote tabulation. Tabulation of votes must be conducted as described in sections 167.60 and 167.70 of this chapter. 4 167.50. Tabulation of Votes; In General. (a) Precinct tabulation. When the hours for voting have ended and all voting has concluded, the election judges in each precinct shall record and publicly declare the number of votes at each ranking on the ballot. The election judges must then securely transfer all electronic voting data and ballots from the precinct to the ranked-choice voting tabulation center designated pursuant to section 167.40 of this chapter. Upon receipt at the ranked-choice voting tabulation center, all electronic voting data and ballots shall be secured. (b) Notice of recess in count. At any time following receipt of materials per 167.50(a) the chief election official may declare a recess. Notice of such recess must include the date, time and location at which the process of recording and tabulating votes will resume and the reason for the recess. Notice shall be posted on the city’s official bulletin board and on the door of the ranked-choice voting counting center. (c) Recording write-in votes. At a time set by the Chief Election Official, the Judges of the Election shall convene at the ranked-choice voting tabulation center to examine ballots on which voters have indicated a write-in choice, and record the names and number of votes received by each write-in candidate. In the event that votes cast for the write-in category are not eliminated as provided in section 167.60 (c), or 167.70 (c), the results must be entered into the ranked-choice voting tabulation software. (d) Ranked-choice vote tabulation. After all votes for all candidates have been recorded and at a time set by the chief election official, the process of tabulating votes cast for offices to be elected using the ranked-choice method shall begin. The counting shall continue until preliminary results for all races are determined, subject to provisions contained in 167.50(b). 167.60. Tabulation of Votes; Single-Seat Elections. (a) Applicability. This section applies to a ranked-choice voting election in which one (1) seat in an office is to be filled from a single set of candidates on the ballot. The method of tabulating ranked- choice votes for single-seat elections as described in this section must be known as the "single-seat single transferable vote" method of tabulation. (1) Tabulation of votes at the ranked-choice voting tabulation center must proceed in rounds for each office to be counted. First the threshold must be calculated and publicly declared. After calculation of the threshold, each round must proceed sequentially as follows: a. The number of votes cast for each candidate, as indicated by the highest continuing ranking on each ballot, must be counted. If a candidate's vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold, the tabulation is complete. If no candidate's vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold, the tabulation must continue as described in clause “b”. 5 b. Candidates appearing on the ballot who do not receive any valid rankings are defeated immediately, before any transfers. c. All candidates are defeated whose vote total, plus all potentially transferable votes from candidates with fewer votes, is less than the vote total of the candidate with the next higher number of votes, such that it is mathematically impossible for that candidate to be elected. All candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be considered defeated simultaneously. Votes for the defeated candidates must be transferred to each ballot's next-ranked continuing candidate. d. The candidate with the fewest votes is defeated. Votes for the defeated candidate must be transferred to each ballot's next-ranked continuing candidate. Ties between candidates with the fewest votes must immediately and publicly be decided by lot by the chief election official at the tabulation center. The candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. e. The procedures in clauses "a" to "d" must be repeated until one (1) candidate reaches the threshold, or until only two (2) continuing candidates remain. If only two (2) candidates remain, the candidate with the most votes must be elected. In the case of a tie between two (2) continuing candidates, the tie must be decided by lot as provided in Minneapolis Charter Chapter 2, Section 12. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. (2) When a single skipped ranking is encountered on a ballot, that ballot shall count towards the next non-skipped ranking. If any ballot cannot be advanced because no further continuing candidates are ranked on that ballot, or because a voter has skipped more than one (1) ranking or has ranked the same candidate in two (2) or more rankings, that ballot shall immediately be declared “exhausted”. Any ballot that has been declared an undervote, overvote, or exhausted must not count towards any candidate in that round or in subsequent rounds. 167.70. Tabulation of Votes, Multiple-Seat Elections. (a) Applicability. This section applies to a ranked-choice voting election in which more than one (1) seat in office is to be filled from a single set of candidates on the ballot. The method of tabulating ranked-choice votes for multiple-seat elections as described in this section must be known as the "multiple-seat single transferable vote" method of tabulation. (1) Tabulation of votes at the ranked-choice voting tabulation center must proceed in rounds for each office to be counted. First the threshold must 6 be calculated and publicly declared. After calculation of the threshold, each round must proceed sequentially as follows: a. The number of votes cast for each candidate, as indicated by the highest ranked continuing candidate on each ballot, must be counted. If the number of candidates whose vote totals equal or exceed the threshold is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the tabulation is complete. If the number of candidates whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold is not equal to the number of seats to be filled, the tabulation must continue as described in clause “b”. b. Surplus votes for any candidates whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold must be calculated. c. Candidates appearing on the ballot who do not receive any valid rankings are defeated immediately, before any transfers. d. After any surplus votes are calculated but not yet transferred, a candidate is defeated whose vote total, plus all potentially transferable votes from elected candidates and candidates with fewer votes, is less than the vote total of the candidate with the next higher number of votes, such that it is mathematically impossible for that candidate to be elected. All candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated simultaneously. Votes for the defeated candidates must be transferred to each ballot’s next-ranked continuing candidate. e. The transfer value of each vote cast for an elected candidate must be transferred to the next continuing candidate on that ballot. If two (2) or more candidates have vote totals that equal or exceed the threshold, the votes for the candidate with the largest surplus will be transferred first with subsequent transfers proceeding in descending order of surplus size. A tie between two (2) or more candidates must immediately and publicly be resolved by lot by the chief election official at the tabulation center. The surplus of the candidate chosen by lot must be transferred before other transfers are made. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. f. If there are no transferable surplus votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is defeated. Votes for a defeated candidate are transferred at their transfer value to each ballot's next-ranked continuing candidate. Ties between candidates with the fewest votes must be decided by lot, and the candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. 7 g. The procedures in clauses "a" to "f" must be repeated until the number of candidates whose vote totals equal or exceed the threshold is equal to the number of seats to be filled, or until the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of offices yet to be elected. If the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of offices yet to be elected, the remaining continuing candidate must be declared elected. In the case of a tie between two (2) continuing candidates, the tie must be decided by lot as provided in Minneapolis Charter Chapter 2, Section 12, and the candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and repeated in the event of a recount. (2) When a single skipped ranking is encountered on a ballot, that ballot shall count towards the next non-skipped ranking. If any ballot cannot be advanced because no further continuing candidates are ranked on that ballot, or because a voter has skipped more than one (1) ranking or has ranked the same candidate in two (2) or more rankings, that ballot shall immediately be declared “exhausted”. Any ballot that has been declared an undervote, overvote, or exhausted must remain so and shall not count towards any candidate in that round or in subsequent rounds. 167.80. Reporting Results. (a) Precinct summary statement. Each precinct must print a precinct summary statement, which must minimally include the number of votes in the first ranking for each candidate. (b) Ranked-choice voting tabulation center summary statement. The ranked- choice voting tabulation center must print a summary statement, which must include the following information: total votes cast; number of undervotes; number of totally defective and spoiled ballots; threshold calculation; total first choice rankings for all candidates; round-by-round tabulation results, including simultaneous batch eliminations, surplus transfers, and defeated candidate transfers; and exhausted ballots at each round. (c) Election abstract. The election abstract must include the information required in the ranked-choice voting tabulation center summary statement, with the addition of the number of registered voters by precinct, the number of same day voter registrations, and the number of absentee voters. 167.90. Recounts. (a) Required recounts. A candidate defeated in the final round of tabulation may request a recount of the votes cast for the nomination or election to that office if the difference between the vote cast for that candidate and for a winning candidate is less than one-half (1/2) of one (1) percent of the total votes counted for that office. In case of offices where two (2) or more seats are being filled from among all the candidates for the office, the one-half (1/2) of one (1) percent difference is between the elected candidate with the fewest votes and the candidate with the most votes from among the candidates who were not elected. 8 (1) Candidates shall file a written request for the recount with the city clerk. All requests shall be filed during the time for notice of contest of the election for which a recount is sought. (2) Upon receipt of a request made pursuant to this section, the city shall recount the votes for a municipal office at the expense of the city. (b) Discretionary candidate recounts. Candidates defeated in the final round of tabulation when the vote difference is greater than the difference required by section 167.90(a), and candidates defeated in an earlier round of counting, may request a recount in the manner provided in this section at the candidate's own expense. (1) The votes shall be recounted as provided in this section if the requesting candidate files with the city clerk a bond, cash, or surety in an amount set by the city for payment of the recount expenses. (c) Notice of contest. Time for notice of contest of election to a municipal office which is recounted pursuant to this section shall begin to run upon certification of the results by the governing body of the municipality. (d) Scope of recount. A recount conducted as provided in this section is limited in scope to the determination of the number of votes validly cast for the office to be recounted. Only the ballots cast in the election and summary statements certified by the election judges may be considered in the recount process. 167.100. Manual Count Procedures. The chief election official shall establish administrative procedures for conduct of a manual count in accordance with rules for counting the votes contained in sections 167.60 and 167.70 of this ordinance. 167.110. Electronic Voting Systems. All provisions of Minnesota Statutes pertaining to electronic voting equipment systems apply, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this chapter. Any voting equipment system used to conduct an election under this section must be authorized for use by the County Auditor pursuant to MN Statute section 206.58. 167.120. Testing of Voting Systems. The chief election official shall have the voting system tested to ascertain that the system will correctly mark ballots using all methods supported by the system, and count the votes cast for all candidates and on all questions per MN Statute Section 206.83. In addition to all requirements of MN Statute Section 206.83, the equipment must be tested to ensure that each ranking for each candidate is recorded properly, and must be tested to ensure the accuracy of software used to perform vote transfers and produce results. 167.130. Post-election Review of Voting System; Ranked-Choice Voting Elections. (a) Selection of test date; notice. Thirty (30) days before a ranked-choice election that will be conducted using electronic voting equipment to tabulate results, the 9 chief election official must set the date, time, and place for conduct of a post-election review, and must also set the date, time and place for the random selection of contests to be reviewed. (b) Scope and conduct of test. The post-election review must be conducted, in public, of a sample of votes cast for at least one (1) single-seat ranked-choice voting election for city council, if applicable, and at least one (1) multiple-seat ranked-choice voting election for either park board or board of estimate and taxation, if applicable. At least one (1) precinct selected in each review must have had at least 1,500 votes cast in the election. (c) Single seat test. No later than two (2) days following completion of the vote tabulation, the chief election official shall select two (2) precincts by lot. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the election shall conduct a manual count of votes cast for the office of council member using procedures called for in section 167.100 of this ordinance and accompanying rules. The judges shall make a record of the votes cast and vote transfers made. Upon determining the outcome of the manual count, the judges shall perform a second test with the same ballots where votes cast are read and counted by the same voting equipment used in the precincts on election day, and shall determine the outcome of the count using the same software used to perform vote transfers at the ranked-choice counting center. (d) Multiple seat test. No later than 2 days following completion of the vote tabulation, the chief election official shall select, by lot, two (2) precincts in a single ward. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the election shall conduct a manual count of votes cast for a multiple seat office appearing on the ballot, also to be determined by lot. Using procedures called for in section 167.100 of this ordinance and accompanying rules, the judges shall count the votes cast and perform vote transfers. Upon determining the outcome of the manual count, the judges shall perform a second test with the same ballots where votes cast are read and counted by the same voting equipment used in the precincts on election day, and shall determine the outcome of the count using the same software used to perform vote transfers at the ranked-choice counting center. (e) Standard of acceptable performance by voting system. A comparison of the results compiled by the voting system with the results compiled by the judges of election performing the manual count must show that the results of the electronic voting system differed by no more than one-half (1/2) of one (1) percent from the manual count of the sample tested. Valid votes that have been marked by the voter outside the vote targets or using a manual marking device that cannot be read by the voting system must not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met the standard of acceptable performance. (f) Additional Review. If the post-election review reveals a difference greater than one-half (1/2) of one (1) percent, in one (1) precinct, the post-election review official must, within two (2) days, conduct an additional review of two (2) more precincts 10 in the same jurisdiction where the discrepancy was discovered. The chief election official must immediately publicly select by lot additional precincts for review. The additional review must be completed within two (2) days after the precincts are selected and the results immediately reported to the county auditor. If the second review also indicates a difference in the vote totals compiled by the voting system that is greater than one-half (1/2) of one (1) percent, in one (1) precinct, from the result indicated by the post-election review, the chief election official must conduct a review of the ballots from all the remaining precincts in the contest being reviewed. This review must be completed no later than two (2) weeks after the election. g) Report of results. Upon completion of the post-election review, the chief election official must immediately report the results to the county auditor and be made public. (h) Update of vote totals. If the post-election review under this section results in a change in the number of votes counted for any candidate, the revised vote totals must be incorporated in the official result from those precincts. (i) Effect on voting systems. If a voting system is found to have failed to record votes accurately and in the manner provided by this chapter, the voting system may not be used at another election until it has been approved for use by the county auditor, pursuant to MN Statute section 206.58. In addition, the county auditor may order the city to conduct a manual recount of all votes cast in the election. (j) Penalties to voting equipment system vendor. If the voting system failure is attributable to either its design or to actions of the vendor, the vendor is liable for the cost of a manual recount ordered per section 167.130 (g) and is liable for additional penalties imposed per agreement between the city and the vendor. \Charter Changes 09.doc Department of Administration To:Charter Commission From:Jim Genellie Date:March 24, 2009 Subject:2009 Charter Amendments The Minnesota Legislature amended the law regarding the number of members a Charter Commission may have. Historically, the City of Hopkins' Charter Commission has had eleven members.The Commission's By-laws state that there shall be eleven members. Staff is proposing that the Charter be amended to fix the size of the charter commission at eleven members. Minnesota Statute 410.05 CHARTER COMMISSION. Subdivision 1.Appointment. The commission shall be composed of not less than seven nor more than 15 members, each of whom shall be a qualified voter of the city. The size of the commission shall be determined within the above limits by the court, except that where the commission is appointed pursuant to a petition of the voters or resolution of the governing body of the city, the size of the commission shall be as specified in such petition or resolution. Any city may by charter provision fix the size of the charter commission at a figure which shall not be less than seven nor more than 15 members, and such charter provision shall prevail over any inconsistent provisions of this subdivision. Except as otherwise provided in the charter, no person shall be disqualified from serving on a charter commission by reason of holding any other elective or appointive office other than judicial. The charter may provide that members of the governing body of the city cannot serve on the charter commission. Proposed Charter Commission amendment: Section 1.05.COMMISSION STRUCTURE.The Charter Commission shall have eleven members appointed pursuant to state law. Each member shall be a citizen of the State of Minnesota and a resident of the City of Hopkins. Hopkins Charter Commission Annual Report 2008 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 29. Commission members included: Jannina Aristy Dorothy Boen David Day Liz Dorn Roger Gross Fran Hesch Karen Jensen Roger Johnson Steve Lewis Jerre Miller Emily Wallace-Jackson Commissioner Wallace-Jackson was elected Chair and Commissioner Jensen was elected Vice-Chair. The Commission discussed Instant Runoff Elections The City Clerk gave a brief summary of the Legislative and Rules Committee of the Ranked Choice Voting Issues Group, which completed the task of developing proposed rules for IRV. The Group submitted draft legislation to the House and Senate election committees. Commissioner Hesch reviewed the work of the Ranked Choice Voting Issues Group, Technical Advisory Committee’s work and hearings that were held regarding RCV. Commissioner Hesch related the difficulty of convincing the Committee to allow Cities with multiple seat elections to choose other Ranked Choice methods for their ballots. In response to the Commission’s request for information at the last meeting, the City Clerk reported that of the 854 cities in Minnesota, approximately 788 of those cities elect members of their councils at large with multiple seat elections. The consensus of the Charter Commission was to continue to research ways to use Ranked Choice or Instant Runoff Voting in elections where there are multiple candidates running for multiple seats, as the case would be with the Hopkins City Council.