The URL can be used to link to this page

04-27-10 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA April 27, 2010 6:30 p.m. Conference Room - Hopkins Center for the Arts 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. 4. Election of Officers 5. Reports. 6. Unfinished Business • Instant Runoff Election update 7. New Business 8. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: • Charter Commission Roster • Minutes of the June 30, 2009 Charter Commission meeting • Instant Runoff Voting Update • RCV Minneapolis Method Story • Summary of a survey of the 2009 election conducted by St. Cloud University • H.F. 742 and H.F. 2052 CHARTER COMMISSION March 22, 2010 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 UNAPPROVED Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission June 30, 2009 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on June 30. Present were Commission members Dorothy Boen, David Day, Fran Hesch, Karen Jensen, Steve Lewis, and Emily Wallace-Jackson. Others present: Representative Steve Simon. The meeting was brought to order at 6:35 p.m. by the Chair of the Commission, Emily Wallace-Jackson. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Commissioner Day moved and Commissioner Jensen seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2009 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. There were no Reports or Communications. Unfinished Business Instant Runoff Elections The Minnesota Supreme Court on June 11 decided that the Minneapolis Ranked Ballot Voting system was constitutional. Subsequent to that, the Minneapolis City Council decided to proceed with ranked ballot voting for its 2009 municipal election. The St. Paul City Council voted to put Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) on the November ballot. The Minnesota Legislature did not take any action on bills to authorize cities to use Instant Runoff Voting. Commissioner Hesch contacted Representative Steve Simon and invited him to the June 30 Commission meeting to give an update on the state legislation. The Hopkins Charter Commission has been a strong proponent of IRV. The issue the Commission has had is with elections where there are multiple candidates running for multiple offices, such as election for Council Members in Hopkins. UNAPPROVED 2 Minneapolis will be using the Single Transferable Voting (STV) method for its Park Board election. The Hopkins Charter Commission has opposed this method because it does not assure that the winning candidates receive a majority of the vote. Representative Simon said that his bill, HF 2052, essentially mirrors the Minneapolis method, IRV for single seat elections and STV for multiple seat elections. HF 2052 does contain language that would allow exceptions to the use of STV: Subd. 4. Alternate counting methods. Notwithstanding subdivision 1, a jurisdiction may use a different ranked-choice counting method for multiple- seat elections upon application to and approval of the secretary of state. The secretary of state must adopt rules governing the approval of alternate counting method applications. The other bill that concerned IRV, HF 742, contained the following exception language: Subd. 3. Home rule charter cities. Nothing in Minnesota Statutes prohibits a home rule charter city from adopting by ordinance for use in city elections instant runoff voting, cumulative voting, ranked-order voting, or another method of voting with a form of ballot that differs from the form required by section 204B.36, subdivision 2. However, since HF 742 also mandated the use of IRV in all Federal and State offices, it is unlikely that that bill will make it through the legislature. Representative Simon said the he had discussions with a representative of FairVote Minnesota and that FairVote would not oppose a bill that offered an alternative to STV for multiple seat elections. He said that he intends to add this provision to any bill offered next session. He said that he would have to discuss this with the Senate sponsor, Ann Rest. Representative Simon said that there is time to work on this bill between now and February when the 2010 session begins. He also told the Commission that Aspen, Colorado uses a method similar to the one proposed by Hopkins to elect its City Council members. The Commission thanked Representative Simon for his efforts and said that they would be willing to assist in the effort to fashion a bill for the next session. UNAPPROVED 3 Establishing the size of the Charter Commission At the April meeting the Commission considered a Charter amendment that would establish the number of Commissioners at eleven. Mr. Genellie reminded the Commission that the Minnesota Legislature amended the law regarding the number of members a Charter Commission may have, setting the number between 7 and 15. He said that the City had received documents from the office of the Chief Judge indicating that Hopkins should have 15 members. Historically, the City of Hopkins' Charter Commission has had eleven members. Mr. Genellie presented Ordinance 2009-1006 to the Commission which would fix the size of the charter commission at eleven members. Commissioner Hesch moved and Commissioner Boen seconded a motion to adopt Charter Commission Resolution 2009-01 recommending that the Hopkins City Council adopt Ordinance 2009-1006 to set the number of Commissioners at 11. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business before the Commission, Commissioner Bowen moved and Commissioner Lewis seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:15 p.m. \IRV Charter Memo 100322.doc Department of Administration Memorandum To: Charter Commission From: Jim Genellie Date: March 22, 2010 Subject: Instant Runoff Voting Update As you know, the City of Minneapolis conducted its November 2009 election using Ranked Choice Voting. This was done using hand counting due to the fact that there are no machines in Minnesota at this time which can handle RCV ballots. There are two Minneapolis documents included: RCV Minneapolis Method Story and a summary of a survey of the 2009 election conducted by St. Cloud University. In St. Paul, voters, in the November 2009 election, approved the use Instant Runoff Voting for future elections. The Minnesota Legislature currently has two bills which authorize cities to use ranked ballot voting, H.F. 742 and H.F. 2052. Both bills have Senate companion bills. H.F. 742 mandates use of Instant Runoff Voting for all federal and state offices. It allows charter cities, such as Hopkins, to any method of instant runoff or ranked ballot voting. H.F. 2052 establishes voting and counting methods for any elections in Minnesota which uses ranked choice voting. It incorporates the "single transferable voting" method for multiple seat elections. It does allow jurisdictions to adopt a different ranked-choice counting method for multiple seat elections upon approval by the Secretary of State. This bill also mandates that any new voting equipment purchased for use in Minnesota have the ability to handle ranked choice voting. Both of these bills are currently in committee. I will give an update on their status at the April 27 meeting. RCV Minneapolis Method Story The hand-counting process for determining winners of single and multiple seat offices in a Ranked Choice Election Minneapolis MN - November 2009 Background In 2006, the voters of Minneapolis approved a change from traditional balloting to Ranked Choice voting for municipal elections. Minnesota Election law requires both federal and state certification of all electronic voting systems. Since there is no certified equipment that can conduct a Ranked Choice Voting election, the City of Minneapolis election staff had to hand-count the 2009 election. Research and Planning As part of the 2006 Minneapolis Instant Runoff Voting Task Force, election staff had completed research and reports that would guide the planning. In December 2006, Minneapolis election staff met with Secretary of State-elect to seek support for creation of the Minnesota Ranked Choice Voting Issues Task Force. This task force had an open membership and included two sub-committees: Technical Advisory and Legislative/Rules Committee. Minneapolis in 2009 The election planning included a dual-track schedule, as the Council could postpone implementation until a future election. The 2009 Municipal election would have 22 offices on the ballots. In each precinct, there would be five different offices on the ballot. During planning of 2009, election staff completed these tasks: • Officially adopted Ranked Choice Voting as the name of the voting method to more accurately reflect the process voters use to rank candidates in single and multi-seat offices. In addition, “Ranked Choice” did not imply “instant” results from the process. • Reviewed the newly created Ranked Choice Voting city ordinance for housekeeping changes needed • Determined the best method to count the multiple seat offices that would comply with Minnesota law was the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM), which could produce the same election results in a recount. • In May 2009, a “test election” was conducted for several purposes • Develop the first-draft ballot design • Work with different draft versions of materials to be used by election judges in the polling place to help voters • Kick-off our voter outreach efforts by inviting various groups to experience a Ranked Choice Voting experience & share their feedback on the experience and the ballot itself • Develop the method for hand-counting the single seat and multiple seat offices to determine the winner(s). Ballots were counted by combining all of the ballots for an office. For a turnout of 70,000, it was estimated that the hand-count for the 22 offices could take between 24 and 129 8-hour shifts of 39 counters. • In June 2009, the council confirmed the Ranked Choice Voting election schedule • The ballot design was improved based on the feedback from the Test Election and other community feedback • In August 2009, the hand-count process was redesigned. A one-week “work-out” session developed the Minneapolis Method of hand-counting the ballots at the precinct level and using the precinct level data for analysis by office. Based on the Minneapolis Method, with a 70,000 voter turnout, it was estimated hand-counting the 22 offices would take 37 8-hour shifts with 102 election judges serving as counters and data entry staff. This new method would assure seating elected candidates on time. • The training plan was designed to use at least one-half of the class-time on explaining Ranked Choice Voting to the election judges • Hired an organization to conduct a impartial survey of voters, candidates and election judges concerning implementation • Recruited a Historian to document the implementation • In addition to the traditional precinct staffing, election judges were recruited and scheduled to do counting and data entry The Minneapolis Method The Minneapolis Method combines a hand-count with data analysis that avoids using an uncertified ballot counting program. In the future, if certified equipment is developed and implemented for Ranked Choice Voting, the Minneapolis Method would be an efficient method for conducting a recount. In Minnesota, a recount must be conducted by hand. Overall, determining winners based on the ballot data rather than sorting and re-sorting the actual ballots was easier and saved time. Some advantages of the Minneapolis Method include • Ballots are counted by precinct rather than combining all ballots for the office. This avoids the problem of candidate rotation precinct by precinct that complicates sorting ballots. • By precinct and office, ballots are sorted down to the unique 3-choice combination (including any possible write-in), counted and then documented on Precinct Ballot Summaries. For an office with 11 candidates, there can be up to 990 different 3-choice combinations…not including the write-ins. • Counting offices by precinct allowed multiple offices to be counted simultaneously. Combining all of an office’s ballots together for counting would have only allowed one city-wide office to be counted at a time. • When the counting of all offices on the precinct ballots is completed, the ballots can then be sealed and stored by precinct as required by MN law. • Providing a means to verify that the same number of votes was counted for each of the five offices on the precinct ballots • Counting by precinct meant that many precincts could be counted simultaneously which allows expanding the counting process if necessary. Implementing the Minneapolis Method The Tabulation Center The Minneapolis Elections Warehouse was converted to a Tabulation Center for counting, data entry and data analysis. Amenities included new vending machines in the break room, improved heating, ergonomic chairs, a cleaning crew and nametag racks to hold color-coded nametags to indicate political party affiliation. Human Resources Counters and Data Entry judges were selected from among Chair and Assistant Chair Judges as well as top performing Team Judges as recommended by Chair Judges. Every day as judges arrived at the Tabulation Center, they picked up their name tags and timesheets, signed in with staff and were directed to a precinct pod seated next to a Counter with a different color-coded nametag. Supply and Transport A Supply and Transport Crew was responsible for ballot security and delivering color- coded supplies to each Precinct Pod. The supplies were color-coded to help with organization and visual management. Some highlights of color-coding of supplies • A different color was used for each of the five offices for both the name placards and also the Ballot Summaries. • Beige was used for Precinct Supply Lists, Duty Cards and timesheets. • The only white paper allowed at the Precinct Pod was the actual ballots. Other notes on organization • Tables were taped off to create different spaces. • Each pod had three sets of name placards with the candidate names to label their sorting area. • A three-letter abbreviation of each candidate name was taken from the first three letters of a candidate’s last name. Using the 3-letter abbreviation saved time for Counters writing and the abbreviations were also built into the Data Entry documents. • Pods had two color-coded slips used to silently request assistance with supplies or process questions, which helped to reduce the background noise. Sorting and Counting Precinct pods for counting were designed using a combination of tables to hold the ballot length. Each pod was staffed with six Counters, three teams of two judges of different political parties. A crew of up to six roamed the floor to help with on-going training and to answer questions. Counters at each precinct pod • Staged the ballots for the precinct (sorted them all the same direction) • Inspected each ballot for voter errors specific to Ranked Choice Voting and accounted for these errors • Sorted the ballots for each office down to the unique 3-choice combination (including all write-ins), counted the ballots with that combination and completed a Ballot Summary for each unique combination in the precinct When a precinct office was completely counted, the Supply and Transit Crew would review the Ballot Summaries for completeness and then deliver them to the Data Entry Teams. Counting each precinct took between 5.5 hours to 8.0 hours, depending on the number of ballots and ballots with voter errors. Counting began Wednesday November 4 and was completed Friday, November 13. Data Entry Data entry judges working at computers as a team of two judges of different parties, entered the precinct level data from the Ballot Summary sheets into the computer. The team also double-checked their work. A data analysis team then verified the data. With six teams of two judges each, data entry of the ballot summaries for a precinct office took an average of one-half hour, depending on the number of ballot summaries. Data entry began Wednesday November 4 and was completed Friday November 13. Data Analysis Data Analysis was conducted using a dual track system. Each of the two teams consisted of a lead analyst and an observer. Both teams did analysis on the same office, performing the exact same steps and calculations, and then verified their results with each other. Data analysis of council offices (which have between 8 to 11 precincts) took between 50 minutes to 1 ½ hours. Analysis of the Park District offices (which have between 19 to 24 precincts) took 50 to 70 minutes. Determining the winning candidate for the city-wide office of Mayor (131 precincts) took 4 hours and 20 minutes for one round. Data analysis for the two city-wide multiple-seat offices with five or six rounds took over eight hours each. 1 ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT RANKED CHOICE VOTING 2009 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS Prepared for Mr. Patrick O’Connor Elections Director City of Minneapolis, Minnesota DECEMBER 2009 3 REPORT OVERVIEW - - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - - The SCSU Survey is pleased to present this report to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The report details the survey used to examine citizen views toward Ranked Choice Voting, the survey constructed to gather office candidate views toward RCV and the survey used to obtain views how election judge thought the RCV process functioned for the 2009 municipal election. In terms of city residents, the SCSU Survey surveyed 1,210 residents. Of those, 683 voted in the November 2009 municipal election and experienced RCV first hand. The remaining respondents (521) were registered voters but did not vote in the election. Respondents were contacted via both land (n=941) and cell phone (n=270) lines. The response rate was 19.1 percent and the cooperation rate was 79.3 percent. Key findings from the survey of voters show: - The overwhelming majority of voters voted in person, not absentee. Gender makes no difference in how respondents voted but younger voters were much more likely to vote absentee than older voters, as were less formally educated voters and voters of color. Although income is a determining factor, no real pattern emerges. Lower income, middle income and upper income voters voted in person and absentee. - Most voters---8 of 10—knew they would be asked to rank their vote choices. Gender was not an important factor but older voters were more likely to know about RCV in advance of Election Day than younger voter, as were more formally educated voters, white voters and wealthier voters. - When asked about how voters learned about ranked choice voting, Table 4 shows many options were available to respondents but the most often cited sources of RCV information were the newspapers and television news. Mailed brochures, friends and neighbors and radio news were also important but not used as much. Least likely to have been used was the City Website and the door to door information campaign. - For most voters (see table 5), they reported they understood how RCV functions perfectly well or fairly well. Gender has no influence on understanding how RCV functions. Older and middle aged individuals seem to understand less than younger voters. The greater the number of years of formal education, the better understanding of how RCV functions is reported. Persons of Color are more likely to understand how RCV functions better than White voters. Findings regarding income are mixed. Lower income family voters were more likely to perfectly understand how RCV functions but higher income family voters were more likely to understand how RCV functions fairly well. 4 - In order to learn from voters how they viewed help from the election judges, we asked how helpful were the judges explaining how votes could be cast. Table 6 shows that we found that 40 percent found judges very helpful and a bit less, 38 percent, found the judges somewhat helpful. Overall, most voters, in other words, found judges helpful. Older, better educated, wealthier, and persons of color found the judges more helpful than other categories of voters. - Of particular interest was whether voters actually ranked candidates. We found that 60 percent (see table 7) of the voters ranked some candidates. Women seemed more likely to rank candidates, as were older voters, better educated voters, white voters and wealthier voters. - Of those that ranked candidates, we followed up and asked about the difficulty of ranking choices. Almost all voters who ranked their vote choices (see table 8), found it simple to rank choices. We found no differences across any of the demographic factors. - We also asked the voters who did not rank candidates why they did not rank the candidates. Table 9 shows that some voters made sophisticated decisions. The most frequent reason mentioned by these voters was that they didn’t know enough about the candidates to rank them; other reasons for ranking included not finding candidates acceptable and wanting to give an advantage to favorite candidates. Other voters, who might be less sophisticated, noted that they will always pick one candidate and didn’t know they could rank candidates or didn’t understand how to rank candidates. - Table 10 shows opinion of voters regarding their preference for RCV and a more traditional method of voting. The data makes clear that a plurality (41 percent) prefers RCV and about a quarter of the respondent voters prefer the traditional system of voting. For an equal number of respondent voters, however, it doesn’t matter which system is used. Although we found no differences on gender, we did find that older voters prefer RCV compared to younger voters. We also found that respondent voters with more years of formal education prefer RCV than those with less years of formal education. Level of formal education and preference for traditional voting system is not as clear but the more years of education seems related to a preference to traditional voting. For those who didn’t seem to care which method of voting is used, lesser years of education is more strongly related than for those with more years of education. White respondent voters seem more strongly prefer both RCV and traditional voting than persons of color whereas person of color respondent voters are strongly related to not particularly caring one way or the other. Generally, the greater ones family income, the stronger is the relationship with RCV and a preference for traditional voting than not caring which method is used. - For those respondents who preferred traditional voting, we followed up to determine if the current time delay in announcing the vote decision was a factor. Table 11 shows that almost seven of ten respondents would not change their view of RCV. Males are stronger in this view, as are younger voters. 5 - Table 12 shows that eight of ten respondent voters are very confident or confident that votes will be counted accurately using RCV. Of the voters, we found general confidence of accuracy increases with age and formal education and income. White respondent voters are more likely to be very confident of accurate counting compared to voters of color who are more confident. As family income increases, so does general confidence that votes will be counted accurately. - Should RCV be used in the future? Table 13 shows that of the respondent voters, almost six of ten voters responded yes. We found no particular pattern for gender differences but did for age, education and income. Older voters are more strongly related to preferring RCV in used in the future, as are respondents with greater levels of education. The pattern for income groups is less clear but lower income voters have an association with preferring RCV than all other categories. - Finally, we asked what respondent views toward RCV is if the election resulted in a different result than using traditional primary and general election processes. We found that a bare majority still prefer RCV because it is more accurate and a quarter prefers the more traditional election system. The older the voter, the stronger the relationship is age and preference with RCV, where as younger voters prefer traditional voting. Income, interestingly, shows that younger and older voters prefer RCV than middle aged individuals. Although income has a significant relationship with RCV vs. traditional voting, the pattern is not clear but respondent voters in the $75-$100,000 income range show the strongest relationship. Key findings from the survey of registered voters who did not vote shows: - In addition to gathering opinion on RCV, we first sought to find why registered voters didn’t vote. Table 15 shows a plurality are regular voters but didn’t vote. About one- third is occasional voters and another one-third, never vote. Following up, table 16 shows that the single one reason for not voting was lack of time. Others forgot about the election and simply don’t care to vote in municipal elections. Younger voters were more likely to lack time, as were lower educated voters, person of color and middle income voters as their reason to not vote; - Although almost evenly split, a slim majority (50% to 45%), of these respondents knew RCV would be used this election. Females, more than males, knew about the RCV method to be used this year, as did older respondents, those with more years of formal education, white voters and those with higher levels of family income; - Of those that knew the election would use RCV, we asked how they learned about RCV. The most often reasons stated by the respondents were newspapers and television news. Following those was radio news and mailed brochures. The City website and door to door information came in last; - We also asked, based on what they had learned, whether they thought the voting process would be difficult or simple. A majority noted they thought it would be simple. Higher income and higher education levels are related to this opinion; 6 - Table 20 shows that of these respondents, when ask if they prefer RCV or traditional voting, the plurality (39%) said it doesn’t matter. Twenty seven percent, compared to 25 percent, noted they prefer traditional voting systems. Middle age respondents prefer RCV than do other age groups. Of those who prefer traditional voting, the strongest relationship is with older respondents. Interestingly, higher educational attainment has a stronger relationship with preferring RCV whereas high school graduates are strongly related to preferring traditional voting. White voters lean more toward RCV and persons of Color are more related to traditional voting systems. We also found that higher income respondents are more related to preferring RCV whereas middle income respondents have a stronger relationship with preferring traditional voting systems; - Table 21 shows the “fairness” question about RCV. For these respondents, the majority think RCV is fair but only one of ten voters say RCV as very fair. Although difference exist among the many categories of demographic indicators, no clear trend is obvious; - Table 22 shows a similar pattern. The majority, but a slim majority, are confident votes will be counted accurately using RCV. Yet, almost seven of ten respondents are very confident and confident in the accuracy of elections using RCV. Males are slightly more confident than female respondents, as are younger respondents, those with lower levels of formal education and family income; - Table 23 shows the majority of respondents think RCV should be used in the future. But, a sizable minority, 23 percent just don’t know and approximately the same percentages of respondents do not think RCV should be used in the future; - Those who said they did not think RCV should be used in the future or didn’t know were asked if there wasn’t time delays in announcing winners of the election would that change their minds. A plurality said, no. About a third said, yes and a quarter said, don’t know. These results are found in table 24; and, - Finally, we asked if the respondents are likely to vote in future Minneapolis municipal elections. Table 25 shows that almost three-fourths are very likely to likely to vote in future elections. But, approximately one-fourth noted they probably are not likely or not at all likely to vote in future Minneapolis municipal elections. The survey of election judges was intended to seek information on the structure of the voting process, so we asked about judge training, whether voters were knowledgeable about RCV process, and how much time compared to traditional voting was consumed. Key findings from this survey shows: - Almost all respondent judges (92%) felt their training for working a ranked choice vote election was excellent or pretty good. The majority felt it was pretty good (table 26); - When the judges were asked if voters were very knowledgeable or knowledgeable about RCV when they arrived to vote, seven of ten said yes. Importantly, the judges 7 noted that a quarter of the voters were not very knowledgeable or not at all knowledgeable (table 27); - Interestingly, judges were evenly split when asked if voters need more time to complete ranked choice ballots, with 44 percent thinking more time was need and 40 percent not (table 29); - When asked why voters needed more time, the judges said that voters needed to learn a new way of voting and that ranked choice voting generally takes more time (table 30); - Although RCV may take more time, the judges overwhelmingly said they were able to help the voters and answer questions about RCV and were able to do their other duties (table 31); and, - Almost one-half of the questions the judges received were about how to file out ballots and far less was about how votes were going to be counted, but a quarter of voters asked about both issues (table 32). The survey of candidates was intended to determine whether candidates for office saw RCV as an advantage to their candidacy, was it fair and whether it should be used in the future. Key findings from this survey shows: - Six of ten respondent candidates think RCV should be used in future elections (table 42); - Similarly, six of ten judges report they prefer RCV to traditional methods of voting (table 39) but more, 70 percent, see RCV as very fair to a fair way to count votes (table 41); - 70 percent of the respondent judges reported they are very confident to confident votes will be counted accurately (table 38; - One-half of the candidates thought RCV positively impacted their campaigns (table 34) but more, 60%, saw it as advantage to candidacy (table 35; - One-half of the candidates saw RCV as an advantage to political party (table 36); and, - Similarly, 50 percent of the candidates adjusted their campaign strategy due to RCV (table 37). Legislature Home | Links to the World | Help | Advanced Search House | Senate | Joint Departments and Commissions | Bill Search and Status | Statutes, Laws, and Rules KEY: stricken = removed, old language. underscored = added, new language. Authors and Status List versions H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Feb 11, 2009 A bill for an act relating to elections; providing for instant runoff voting in federal, state, and local elections;amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 200.02, by adding a subdivision; 204B.36, subdivision 2; 204D.10, subdivision 1; 205A.03, subdivision 1; 205A.06, subdivision 1a; 206.80; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 204C. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 200.02, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 25. Instant runoff voting. "Instant runoff voting" means the voting procedure in sections 204C.331 to 204C.336. Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 204B.36, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Candidates and offices. The name of each candidate shall be printed at a right angle to the length of the ballot. At a general election the name of the political party or the political principle of each candidate for partisan office shall be printed above or below the name of the candidate. The name of a political party or a political principle shall be printed in capital and lowercase letters of the same type, with the capital letters at least one-half the height of the capital letters used for names of the candidates. At a general election, blank lines containing the words "write-in, if any" shall be printed below the name of the last candidate for each office, or below the title of the office if no candidate has filed for that office, so that a voter may write in the names of individuals whose names are not on the ballot. One blank line shall be printed for each officer of that kind to be elected. At a primary election, no blank lines shall be provided for writing in the names of individuals whose names do not appear on the primary ballot. At an election using instant runoff voting under sections 204C.331 to 204C.336, the ballot must be as prescribed in section 204C.335. At an election not using instant runoff voting, on the left side of the ballot at the same level with the name of each candidate and each blank line shall be printed a square in which the voter may designate a vote by a mark (X). Each square shall be the same size. Above the first name on each ballot shall be printed the words, "Put an (X) in the square opposite the name of each candidate you wish to vote for." At the same level with these words and directly above the squares shall be printed a small arrow pointing downward. Directly underneath the official title of each office shall be printed the words "Vote for one" or "Vote for up to ..." (any greater number to be elected). Sec. 3. [204C.331] DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Application. The definitions in this section apply to sections 204C.331 to 204C.336. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.142.152.162.172.182.192.202.212.222.232.242.252.262.272.282.292.302.312.322.332.342.353.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.93.103.113.123.133.143.153.163.173.183.193.203.213.223.233.243.253.263.273.283.293.303.313.323.334.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.94.104.114.124.134.144.154.164.174.184.194.204.214.224.234.244.254.264.274.284.294.304.314.324.334.344.355.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.85.95.105.115.125.135.145.155.165.175.185.195.205.215.225.235.245.255.265.275.285.295.305.315.325.335.346.16.26.36.46.56.66.76.86.96.106.116.126.136.146.156.166.176.186.196.206.216.226.236.246.256.266.276.286.296.306.317.17.27.37.47.57.67.77.87.97.107.117.127.137.147.157.167.177.187.197.207.217.227.237.247.257.267.277.287.297.307.317.327.337.347.358.18.28.3 H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0742.0.html&session... 1 of 6 03/18/2010 3:21 PM Subd. 2. Choice. "Choice" means an indication on a ballot of a voter's ranking of candidates for a particular office according to the voter's preference. Subd. 3. Continuing ballot. "Continuing ballot" means a ballot that is not exhausted. Subd. 4. Exhausted ballot. "Exhausted ballot" means a ballot on which all available choices have been used; for example, all choices made on the ballot have become votes for the various candidates so indicated or contain choices for eliminated candidates or both and contain no other choices. Subd. 5. Instant runoff voting. "Instant runoff voting" means a system of voting whereby voters may rank up to three candidates for the same office in order of preference so that voters may indicate a first choice, a second choice, and a third choice if they wish. Subd. 6. Last place candidate. "Last place candidate" means a candidate who has received the fewest votes among the candidates who remain at any stage. Two or more candidates simultaneously become last place candidates if their combined votes add up to less than all votes for the candidate with the next highest number of votes. Subd. 7. Next choice. "Next choice" means the highest ranked choice for a remaining candidate that has not become a vote at the stage referred to. Subd. 8. Remaining candidate; candidates who remain. "Remaining candidate" means a candidate who has not been eliminated. "Candidates who remain" are all those who have not been eliminated at the stage referred to. Subd. 9. Stage; stage in the counting. "Stage" or "stage in the counting" means a step in counting votes where votes for all remaining candidates are counted to determine whether a candidate has achieved a majority and, if not, which candidate or candidates are eliminated. Subd. 10. Vote. "Vote" means a ballot choice that is counted toward nomination or election of a candidate. All first choices are votes. Lower ranked choices are potential votes that may, according to the procedures in sections 204C.335 and 204C.336, be credited to a candidate, and thus become votes for the candidate. Sec. 4. [204C.332] APPLICATION. Subdivision 1. Federal and state offices. Instant runoff voting applies to voting in all primary, regular, and special elections where three or more candidates are running for the same office, if the office is one of the following: (1) president and vice president of the United States; (2) members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives; (3) governor and lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and state auditor; or (4) senator or representative in the legislature. Subd. 2. Statutory cities. A statutory city may approve the use of instant runoff voting to elect the offices of mayor, clerk, treasurer, clerk-treasurer, or a member of the city council elected from a single-member ward. Approval must be by a majority vote of the electors voting on the question at a special election held under section 205.10. The question presented must be "Shall instant runoff voting be used in city elections?" Subd. 3. Home rule charter cities. Nothing in Minnesota Statutes prohibits a home rule charter city from adopting by ordinance for use in city elections instant runoff voting, cumulative voting, ranked-order voting, or another method of voting with a form of ballot that differs from the form required by section 204B.36, subdivision 2. Subd. 4. School districts. School district use of instant runoff voting is governed by section 205A.03, subdivision 1. H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0742.0.html&session... 2 of 6 03/18/2010 3:21 PM Sec. 5. [204C.333] COUNTING OF BALLOTS. Subdivision 1. General explanation. In general, instant runoff counting proceeds in the following manner: (a) All votes must be counted. A candidate who receives a majority of the votes is nominated or elected. (b) If no candidate receives a majority at the first or any subsequent stage, then the last-place candidate at each stage is eliminated. (c) The next choices on ballots for an eliminated candidate become votes for the candidates indicated in those choices, and this process continues until all but one candidate has been eliminated. Subd. 2. Specific procedures. (a) This subdivision governs how votes must be counted for each office covered by instant runoff voting, subject to the conditions in section 204C.336. (b) All first choices are counted first and if a candidate has obtained a majority of those votes that candidate is nominated or elected and counting ends. (c) If no candidate receives a majority of votes at the first stage, then second-stage counting begins by eliminating the last-place candidate and the second choices made on ballots for the eliminated candidate become votes for the second-choice candidate indicated on those ballots. A candidate who receives a majority of votes at that stage is nominated or elected. (d) If no candidate receives a majority at a previous stage, the last-place candidate among the remaining candidates is eliminated and the next choices made on ballots for an eliminated candidate become votes for the candidate indicated on those ballots. A candidate who receives a majority of votes at that stage is nominated or elected. (e) If at any stage in the counting there are two or more last-place candidates, these candidates are eliminated simultaneously and the next choices made on ballots that had votes for one or more eliminated candidates become votes for indicated candidates who remain. (f) The counting process continues in this manner with successive last-place candidates being eliminated and the next choices made on continuing ballots on which votes were cast for eliminated candidates are counted for the remaining candidate or candidates indicated by those choices until all but one candidate has been eliminated and that candidate is then nominated or elected. Sec. 6. [204C.334] VOTING CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS. Subdivision 1. Exhausted ballots. Once a ballot is exhausted it is disregarded and no longer counted. A ballot assigning the same ranking to more than one candidate for an office is exhausted when the duplicate ranking is reached, in which case no vote is recorded for any of the duplicate candidates so chosen. Subd. 2. Skipped ranking. If a ballot choice skips a ranking, the next ranking below the skipped choice is moved up and counted as though it were the rank of the skipped choice. Subd. 3. Tie votes. Ties must be decided by lot according to section 204C.33. Subd. 4. Maximum effective choices. Only three choices for any one office are counted. Subd. 5. Write-in votes. Voters may write in one candidate for each office and assign a ranking to the write-in candidate along with candidates whose names are already on the ballot. Write-in candidates with fewer than ten votes are automatically eliminated in elections in jurisdictions where more than 1,000 total ballots were cast in the previous election. H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0742.0.html&session... 3 of 6 03/18/2010 3:21 PM Subd. 6. Insufficient choice votes made. If ballots do not contain sufficient effective second and lower choices for a particular office, so that at the end of the counting no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate who has received the most votes is nominated or elected. Subd. 7. Votes for eliminated candidates. No votes may be counted for a candidate who has been eliminated no matter how many second and lower-ranked choices might otherwise have become votes for the candidate in a later stage. Sec. 7. [204C.335] BALLOT SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS TO VOTERS. Sample ballots illustrating voting procedures must be posted in or near the voting booth and included in the instruction packet of absentee ballots. Directions provided to voters must conform substantially to the following specifications: "You may vote for candidates in order of preference. Indicate your first choice by marking the number "1" beside a candidate's name (or by marking in the column labeled "First Choice"), your second choice by marking the number "2" (or by marking the column labeled "Second Choice"), your third choice by marking the number "3" (or by marking in the column labeled "Third Choice"), for as many or as few choices as you wish, up to three. You are under no obligation to rank more than one candidate for each office, but ranking additional candidates will not affect your first-choice candidate. Do not mark the same number beside more than one candidate (or put more than one mark in each column for the office you are voting on). Do not skip numbers." Sec. 8. [204C.336] CHANGES IN VOTING DEVICES AND COUNTING METHODS. Appropriate election officials of this state may provide for the use of electronic, computerized, or other devices for marking, sorting, and counting the ballots and tabulating the results and may modify the design and form of the ballots, the directions to voters, and the details with respect to the method of marking, sorting, invalidating, and retaining of ballots, and the counting of votes. No change may be made inconsistent with provisions, purposes, or principles of this section. Election officials must provide voters with a ballot that has a special design, format, or layout for offices to which instant runoff voting applies, but the parts of ballots for contests that have only one or two candidates for the same office may differ from the parts of a ballot to which instant runoff voting applies. Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 204D.10, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. Partisan offices; nominees. The candidate for nomination of a major political party for a partisan office on the state partisan primary ballot who receives the highest number a majority of votes or is the last candidate remaining under a system of instant runoff voting shall be the nominee of that political party for that office, except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2. Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 205A.03, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. Resolution requiring primary in certain circumstances. The school board of a school district may, by resolution adopted by June 1 of any year, decide to choose nominees for school board by a primary as provided in this section. The resolution, when adopted, is effective for all ensuing elections of board members in that school district until it is revoked. If the board decides to choose nominees by primary and if there are more than two candidates for a specified school board position or more than twice as many school board candidates as there are at-large school board positions H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0742.0.html&session... 4 of 6 03/18/2010 3:21 PM available, the school district must either hold a primary or hold the general election using instant runoff voting. Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 205A.06, subdivision 1a, is amended to read: Subd. 1a. Filing period. In school districts that have adopted a resolution to choose nominees for school board by a primary election, affidavits of candidacy must be filed with the school district clerk no earlier than the 70th day and no later than the 56th day before the first Tuesday after the second Monday in September in the year when the school district general election is held. In all other school districts, affidavits of candidacy must be filed no earlier than the 70th day and no later than the 56th day before the school district general election. In a school district that uses instant runoff voting, affidavits of candidacy must be filed no earlier than the 70th day and no later than the 56th day before the school district general election. Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 206.80, is amended to read: 206.80 ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS. (a) An electronic voting system may not be employed unless it: (1) permits every voter to vote in secret; (2) permits every voter to vote for all candidates and questions for whom or upon which the voter is legally entitled to vote; (3) supports cumulative voting and rank-order voting; (4) provides for write-in voting when authorized; (4) (5) automatically rejects, except as provided in section 206.84 with respect to write-in votes, all votes for an office or question when the number of votes cast on it exceeds the number which the voter is entitled to cast; (5) (6) permits a voter at a primary election to select secretly the party for which the voter wishes to vote; (6) (7) automatically rejects all votes cast in a primary election by a voter when the voter votes for candidates of more than one party; and (7) (8) provides every voter an opportunity to verify votes recorded on the permanent paper ballot, either visually or using assistive voting technology, and to change votes or correct any error before the voter's ballot is cast and counted, produces an individual, discrete, permanent, paper ballot cast by the voter, and preserves the paper ballot as an official record available for use in any recount. (b) An electronic voting system purchased on or after June 4, 2005, may not be employed unless it: (1) accepts and tabulates, in the polling place or at a counting center, a marked optical scan ballot; or (2) creates a marked optical scan ballot that can be tabulated in the polling place or at a counting center by automatic tabulating equipment certified for use in this state. Sec. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. Subdivision 1. Effective date. This act is effective July 1, 2009, except that section 4, subdivision 1, and sections 9 to 11 are effective beginning with the first state primary and general election following the declaration of readiness under subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Declaration of readiness. By January 15 of each even-numbered year, the secretary of state shall report to the legislature on the readiness of the state to implement instant runoff voting for the offices named in section 4, subdivision 1. Readiness may be achieved by using paper ballots or by upgrading electronic voting equipment to have the capacity to process a ranked ballot. When the state has achieved full readiness to H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0742.0.html&session... 5 of 6 03/18/2010 3:21 PM implement instant runoff voting as described in Minnesota Statutes, sections 204C.331 to 204C.336, at the following state primary and general election, the secretary of state shall declare that fact. Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator . For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. last updated: 04/15/2009 H.F. No. 742, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0742.0.html&session... 6 of 6 03/18/2010 3:21 PM Legislature Home | Links to the World | Help | Advanced Search House | Senate | Joint Departments and Commissions | Bill Search and Status | Statutes, Laws, and Rules KEY: stricken = removed, old language. underscored = added, new language. Authors and Status List versions H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Mar 23, 2009 A bill for an act relating to elections; establishing procedures for home rule charter jurisdictions that adopt ranked-choice voting;amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 205.13, subdivision 2; 206.83; 206.89, subdivisions 2, 3; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 206; proposing coding for new law as Minnesota Statutes, chapter 204E. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. [204E.01] APPLICABILITY. (a) This chapter applies to all elections conducted using ranked-choice voting. All other provisions of Minnesota Statutes also apply, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this chapter. (b) Except as otherwise provided, a jurisdiction that chooses to adopt ranked-choice voting pursuant to section 204E.03 must conduct the elections according to the method and procedures established by this chapter. (c) Ranked-choice voting shall only be used to elect offices at a general or special election. A primary election must not be held for any nonpartisan offices which are elected using ranked-choice voting. Sec. 2. [204E.02] DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Scope. The definitions in this section apply to this chapter. Subd. 2. Batch elimination. "Batch elimination" means a simultaneous defeat of multiple continuing candidates that have no mathematical chance of being elected. Subd. 3. Continuing candidate. "Continuing candidate" means a candidate who has been neither elected nor defeated. Subd. 4. Duplicate ranking. "Duplicate ranking" occurs when a voter ranks the same candidate at multiple rankings. Subd. 5. Exhausted ballot. "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 candidate given the next ranking. Subd. 6. Highest continuing ranking. "Highest continuing ranking" means the ranking on a voter's ballot with the lowest numerical value for a continuing candidate. Subd. 7. Overvote. An "overvote" occurs when a voter ranks more than one candidate at the same ranking. Subd. 8. Partially defective ballot. "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. Subd. 9. Ranked-choice voting. "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 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.162.172.182.192.202.212.222.232.242.252.262.272.282.292.302.312.322.332.342.352.363.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.93.103.113.123.133.143.153.163.173.183.193.203.213.223.233.243.253.263.273.283.293.303.313.323.333.344.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.94.104.114.124.134.144.154.164.174.184.194.204.214.224.234.244.254.264.274.284.294.304.314.324.334.345.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.85.95.105.115.125.135.145.155.165.175.185.195.205.215.225.235.245.255.265.275.285.295.305.315.325.335.345.355.366.16.26.36.46.56.66.76.86.96.106.116.126.136.146.156.166.176.186.196.206.216.226.236.246.256.266.276.286.296.306.316.326.336.346.357.17.27.37.47.57.67.77.87.97.107.117.127.137.147.157.167.177.187.197.207.217.227.237.247.257.267.277.287.297.307.317.327.337.347.357.368.18.28.38.48.58.68.78.88.98.108.118.128.138.148.158.168.178.188.198.208.218.228.238.248.258.268.278.288.298.308.318.328.339.19.29.39.49.59.69.79.89.99.109.119.129.139.149.159.169.179.189.199.209.219.229.239.249.259.269.279.289.299.309.3110.110.210.310.410.510.610.710.810.910.1010.1110.1210.1310.1410.1510.1610.1710.1810.1910.2010.2110.2210.2310.2410.2510.2610.2710.2810.2910.3010.3110.3210.3310.3410.3511.111.211.311.411.511.611.711.811.911.1011.1111.1211.1311.1411.1511.1611.1711.1811.1911.2011.2111.2211.2311.2411.2511.2611.2711.2811.2911.3011.3111.32 H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 1 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM until one candidate meets the threshold, or until two 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 preferences marked on each ballot as described in section 204E.07. The series of runoffs are simulated until all seats to be elected have been filled. Subd. 10. Ranked-choice voting tabulation center. "Ranked-choice voting tabulation center" means the place selected for the automatic or manual processing and tabulation of ballots. Subd. 11. Ranking. "Ranking" means the number assigned by a voter to a candidate to express the voter's preference for that candidate. Ranking number one is the highest ranking. A ranking of lower numerical value indicates a greater preference for a candidate than a ranking of higher numerical value. Subd. 12. Round. "Round" means an instance of the sequence of voting tabulation steps established in sections 204E.06 and 204E.07. Subd. 13. Skipped ranking. "Skipped ranking" occurs when a voter leaves a ranking blank and ranks a candidate at a subsequent ranking. Subd. 14. Surplus. "Surplus" means the total number of votes cast for an elected candidate in excess of the threshold. Subd. 15. Surplus fraction of a vote. "Surplus fraction of a vote" means the surplus divided by the total votes cast for the elected candidate, calculated to four decimal places. Surplus fraction of a vote = (Surplus)/(Total votes cast for elected candidate). Subd. 16. Threshold. "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 defective ballots, divided by the sum of one plus the number of offices to be filled and adding one to the quotient, disregarding any fractions. Threshold = (Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1) +1. Subd. 17. Transfer value. "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. Subd. 18. Transferable vote. "Transferable vote" means a vote or a fraction of a vote for a candidate who has been either elected or defeated. Subd. 19. Totally defective ballot. "Totally defective ballot" means a ballot that is defective to the extent that election judges are unable to determine the voter's intent for any office on the ballot. Subd. 20. Undervote. An "undervote" occurs when a voter does not rank any candidates for an office. Sec. 3. [204E.03] IMPLEMENTATION OF RANKED-CHOICE VOTING. (a) A home rule charter city or county that adopts the use of ranked-choice voting in local elections must adopt a charter amendment no later than 30 days before the first day for filing affidavits of candidacy for the office for which ranked-choice voting is to be used as the method of election. (b) The use of ranked-choice voting may be eliminated through repeal of the charter amendment no later than 30 days before the first day for filing affidavits of candidacy for offices for which ranked-choice voting is used as the method of election. (c) The chief election official in the jurisdiction must notify the secretary of state and, if applicable, the county auditor within 30 days following adoption or repeal of the charter amendment. H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 2 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM Sec. 4. [204E.04] BALLOTS. Subdivision 1. Ballot format. (a) When there are three or more qualified candidates, a ballot must allow a voter to rank at least three candidates for each office in order of preference and must also allow the voter to add write-in candidates. (b) A jurisdiction may use ballots compatible with alphanumeric character recognition voting equipment. Subd. 2. 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. A separate ballot card may be used if necessary. A jurisdiction may deviate from the standard ballot order of offices to allow separation of ranked-choice voting and non-ranked-choice voting elections. Subd. 3. Ballot instructions. (a) In an election held using optical-scan voting technology, the ballot must include instructions to voters appearing substantially as follows: "INSTRUCTIONS: Mark your first choice in the first column by completely filling in the oval next to your choice, as shown in the picture. To indicate a second choice, select a different candidate in the second column. To indicate a third choice, select a different candidate in the third column. To indicate additional choices, select different candidates in the appropriate columns. 1. Rank candidates in order of your preference. 2. You may rank as few candidates as you wish or as many as is allowed. 3. Do not skip rankings. 4. Do not give the same ranking to more than one candidate. 5. Do not rank the same candidate more than once." (b) In an election held using alphanumeric character recognition technology, the ballot must contain the instructions as provided in paragraph (a), provided that the instructions may be modified where necessary to reflect the appearance and layout of the ballot. Sec. 5. [204E.05] RANKED-CHOICE VOTING TABULATION CENTER. The chief election official in the jurisdiction shall designate one 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 204E.06 and 204E.07. Sec. 6. [204E.06] TABULATION OF VOTES; SINGLE-SEAT ELECTIONS. Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies to a ranked-choice voting election in which one seat in 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. Subd. 2. 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, if applicable, from the precinct to the ranked-choice voting tabulation center designated pursuant to section 204E.05. Subd. 3. Ranked-choice voting tabulation center. (a) Tabulation of votes at the ranked-choice voting tabulation center must proceed in rounds. First the threshold must H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 3 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM be calculated and publicly declared. After calculation of the threshold, each round must proceed sequentially as follows: (1) 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 (2). (2) Candidates appearing on the ballot who do not receive any votes are defeated immediately, before any transfers. (3) 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. (4) If no candidates were defeated in clause (3), 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 administrator 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. (5) The procedures in clauses (1) to (4) must be repeated until one candidate reaches the threshold, or until only two continuing candidates remain. If only two candidates remain, the candidate with the most votes must be elected. In the case of a tie between two continuing candidates, the tie must be decided by lot as provided in section 204C.34. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. (b) When a single skipped ranking is encountered on a ballot, that ballot shall count toward 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 ranking, ranked more than one candidate in the next ranking, or ranked the same candidate in two or more rankings, that ballot must 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. Sec. 7. [204E.07] TABULATION OF VOTES; MULTIPLE-SEAT ELECTIONS. Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies to a ranked-choice voting election in which more than one 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. Subd. 2. Precinct tabulation. When the hours for voting have ended and all voting has concluded, the election judges in each precinct must 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, if applicable, from the precinct to the ranked-choice voting tabulation center designated pursuant to section 204E.05. Subd. 3. Ranked-choice voting tabulation center. (a) 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: (1) 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 H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 4 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM 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 provided in the remainder of this subdivision. (2) Surplus votes for any candidates whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold must be calculated. (3) Candidates appearing on the ballot who do not receive any votes are defeated immediately, before any transfers. (4) 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. (5) The transfer value of each vote cast for an elected candidate must be transferred to the next continuing candidate on that ballot. If two or more candidates have vote totals that equal or exceed the threshold, the surplus fraction of the votes cast for the elected candidate with the most votes must be transferred to the next continuing candidate on each ballot. The surplus fraction of votes cast for the other elected candidates, in order of vote totals, must then be transferred to the next continuing candidate on each ballot. A tie between two or more candidates with the fewest votes must immediately and publicly be resolved by lot by the chief election administrator at the tabulation center. The candidate chosen by lot must be defeated and the surplus fraction of the vote for the defeated candidate 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. (6) If no candidates were defeated in clause (4) and if there are no transferable surplus votes, 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 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) The procedures in clauses (1) to (6) 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 continuing candidates, the tie must be decided by lot as provided in section 204C.34, 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. (b) When a single skipped ranking is encountered on a ballot, that ballot shall count toward the next non-skipped ranking. If any ballot cannot be advanced because no further candidates are ranked on that ballot, or because a voter has skipped more than one ranking, ranked more than one candidate in the next ranking, or has ranked the same candidate in two or more rankings, that ballot must 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. Subd. 4. Alternate counting methods. Notwithstanding subdivision 1, a jurisdiction may use a different ranked-choice counting method for multiple-seat elections upon application to and approval of the secretary of state. The secretary of state must H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 5 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM adopt rules governing the approval of alternate counting method applications. Sec. 8. [204E.08] WRITE-IN PROCEDURES. In the event that votes cast for the write-in category are not eliminated as provided in section 204E.06, subdivision 2, or 204E.07, subdivision 3, each ballot must be examined by the elections administrator and the results must be entered into the ranked-choice voting tabulation software. Sec. 9. [204E.09] REPORTING RESULTS. (a) Each precinct must print a precinct summary statement, which must include the number of votes in each ranking for each candidate. (b) 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) 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. Sec. 10. [204E.12] RECOUNTS. (a) A candidate defeated in the final round of tabulation may request a recount as provided in section 204C.36. (b) A candidate defeated in the final round of tabulation when the vote difference is greater than that provided in section 204C.36 may request a recount at the candidate's own expense. A candidate defeated in an earlier round of tabulation may request a recount at the candidate's own expense. The candidate is responsible for all expenses associated with the recount regardless of the vote difference between the candidates in the round in which the requesting candidate was defeated. The requesting candidate shall file with the filing officer a bond, cash, or surety in an amount set by the filing officer for the payment of the recount expenses. Expenses shall be determined as provided in section 204C.36, subdivision 4. (c) Rules adopted by the secretary of state pursuant to section 204C.36 for recounts apply to recounts conducted pursuant to this section. Sec. 11. [204E.13] RULES. The secretary of state may adopt rules necessary to implement the requirements and procedures established by this chapter. Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 205.13, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Notice of filing dates. At least two weeks before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy, the municipal clerk shall publish a notice stating the first and last dates on which affidavits of candidacy may be filed in the clerk's office and the closing time for filing on the last day for filing. The clerk shall post a similar notice at least ten days before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. The notice must indicate the method of election to be used for the offices on the ballot. If ranked-choice voting is to be used for a multiple-winner election and the method of tabulating votes is different from that described in section 204E.07, the notice must also indicate the date on which the H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 6 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM secretary of state approved the alternate tabulation method and a location at which a full copy of the tabulation procedures to be used may be inspected. Sec. 13. [206.802] ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS; PURCHASING. Any new voting equipment purchased for use in Minnesota for the purpose of replacing a voting system must have the ability to: (1) capture and store ballot data; (2) keep data anonymous; (3) accept ranked or cumulative voting data under a variety of tabulation rules; (4) be programmable to follow all other specifications of the ranked-choice voting system as provided in chapter 204E; (5) provide a minimum of three rankings for ranked-choice voting elections; (6) notify voters of the following errors: overvotes, skipped rankings, and duplicate rankings in a ranked-choice voting election; and (7) be programmable to print a zero tape indicating all rankings for all candidates in a ranked-choice voting election. EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective upon certification by the secretary of state that equipment meeting the standards required by this section is available for purchase and implementation. Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 206.83, is amended to read: 206.83 TESTING OF VOTING SYSTEMS. (a) Within 14 days before election day, the official in charge of elections shall have the voting system tested to ascertain that the system will correctly mark ballots using all methods supported by the system, including ranked-choice voting if applicable, and through assistive technology, and count the votes cast for all candidates and on all questions. Public notice of the time and place of the test must be given at least two days in advance by publication once in official newspapers. The test must be observed by at least two election judges, who are not of the same major political party, and must be open to representatives of the political parties, candidates, the press, and the public. The test must be conducted by (1) processing a preaudited group of ballots punched or marked to record a predetermined number of valid votes for each candidate and on each question, and must include for each office one or more ballot cards which have votes in excess of the number allowed by law in order to test the ability of the voting system tabulator and electronic ballot marker to reject those votes; and (2) processing an additional test deck of ballots marked using the electronic ballot marker for the precinct, including ballots marked using the electronic ballot display, audio ballot reader, and any assistive voting technology used with the electronic ballot marker. If an election is to be conducted using ranked-choice voting, the equipment must also be tested to ensure that each ranking for each candidate is recorded properly. (b) If any error is detected, the cause must be ascertained and corrected and an errorless count must be made before the voting system may be used in the election. (c) After the completion of the test, the programs used and ballot cards must be sealed, retained, and disposed of as provided for paper ballots. Sec. 15. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 206.89, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Selection for review; notice. At the canvass of the state primary, the county canvassing board in each county must set the date, time, and place for the postelection review of the state general election to be held under this section. In jurisdictions where ranked-choice voting is used, the date, time, and place for postelection H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 7 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM review must be set by the county auditor at least 30 days before the election. At the canvass of the state general election, the county canvassing boards must select the precincts to be reviewed by lot. The county canvassing board of a county with fewer than 50,000 registered voters must conduct a postelection review of a total of at least two precincts. The county canvassing board of a county with between 50,000 and 100,000 registered voters must conduct a review of a total of at least three precincts. The county canvassing board of a county with over 100,000 registered voters must conduct a review of a total of at least four precincts, or three percent of the total number of precincts in the county, whichever is greater. At least one precinct selected in each county must have had more than 150 votes cast at the general election. The county auditor must notify the secretary of state of the precincts that have been chosen for review and the time and place the postelection review for that county will be conducted, as soon as the decisions are made. If the selection of precincts has not resulted in the selection of at least four precincts in each congressional district, the secretary of state may require counties to select by lot additional precincts to meet the congressional district requirement. The secretary of state must post this information on the office Web site. Sec. 16. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 206.89, subdivision 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. Scope and conduct of review. The county canvassing board shall appoint the postelection review official as defined in subdivision 1. The postelection review must be conducted of the votes cast for president or governor; United States senator; and United States representative. In jurisdictions where ranked-choice voting is used, the review must also include at least one single-seat ranked-choice voting election and at least one multiple-seat ranked-choice voting election, if such an election occurred. A postelection review of a ranked-choice voting election must be conducted for elections decided most closely in the final round, by percentage. The postelection review official may conduct postelection review of the votes cast for additional offices. The postelection review must be conducted in public at the location where the voted ballots have been securely stored after the state general election or at another location chosen by the county canvassing board. The postelection review official for each precinct selected must conduct the postelection review and may be assisted by election judges designated by the postelection review official for this purpose. The party balance requirement of section 204B.19 applies to election judges designated for the review. The postelection review must consist of a manual count of the ballots used in the precincts selected and must be performed in the manner provided by section 204C.21. The postelection review must be conducted in the manner provided for recounts under section 204C.361 to the extent practicable, and where ranked-choice voting is used, must include testing of the accumulation software, using stored electronic data for those precincts that are not reviewed by manual count. The review must be completed no later than two days before the meeting of the state canvassing board to certify the results of the state general election. Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator . For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. last updated: 04/15/2009 H.F. No. 2052, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2052.0.html&session... 8 of 8 03/18/2010 4:09 PM