Loading...
04-24-07 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA April 24, 2007 6:30 p.m. Hopkins Center for the Arts Upstairs John Ireland Community Room 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting 4. Consideration of Communications 5. Old Business • Instant Runoff Elections 6. New Business 7. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: • Charter Commission Roster • Minutes of the June 6, 2006 Charter Commission meeting • Memorandum • Proposed Hopkins ordinance regarding Ranked Ballot Voting with comparison to previous ordinance • City of Minneapolis Instant Runoff Voting Implementation Update #1 • Minneapolis Charter Amendment • Minnesota House of Representatives Report on Instant Runoff Voting • City Council Worksession Minutes - August 22, 2006 • 2006 Annual Report CHARTER COMMISSION February 26, 2007 Name Term Term Expires Dorothy Boen Second 4/13/2008 David Day First 9/22/2007 Roger Gross Second 4/13/2008 Fran Hesch Second 4/7/2010 Karen Jensen First 10/20/2009 Roger Johnson Second 8/26/2009 Steve Lewis First 9/26/2008 Jerre Miller First 9/26/2008 Robert Miller First 4/7/2006 Emily Wallace -Jackson First 3/5/2008 Chair: Roger Gross Vice -Chair: Emily Wallace -Jackson UNAPPROVED Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission June 6, 2006 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on June 6. Present were Commission members Dorothy Boen, Roger Gross, Fran Hesch, Steve Lewis, Bob Miller, Jerre Miller and Emily Wallace -Jackson. The meeting was brought to order at 6:36 p.m. by the Chair of the Commission, Roger Gross. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Commissioner Bob Miller asked for a clarification of the discussion regarding what to do with ballots where the voter skipped a rank on the ballot. For example, when voting for two Council Members, a voter chooses the two first choices and then chooses a candidate for Alternate #2 but leaves Alternate #1 blank. After discussion the Commission reconfirmed that the voter would be given a chance to correct the ballot but if submitted such a ballot would be treated the same as if the voter had made no Alternative choices. Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Hesch,seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2006 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. Old Business Ranked Ballot Voting Mr. Genellie presented a revised draft of the proposed Charter amendment ordinance. The Commission discussed the various sections of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Bob Miller initiated a discussion of section 4.04 (a) If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. Commissioner Bob Miller argued that this should be considered an invalid ballot. Other Commissioners argued that as long as the equal ranking occurred after there was a valid ranking, for example if the voter voted for one candidate as the first choice and two candidates as the second choice, that the vote for the first choice candidate should be counted. Commissioner Bob Miller moved and Commissioner Jerre Miller seconded a motion that whenever a ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, that ballot should be declared invalid. UNAPPROVED 'j Commissioner Boen; Nay; Commissioner Gross, Nay; Commissioner Hesch, Nay; Commissioner Lewis, Nay; Commissioner Bob Miller, Aye; Commissioner Jerre Miller, Aye; Commissioner Wallace -Jackson, Nay. The motion failed. Commissioner Bob Miller said that he thought that the wording in Section 4.04 (d) was confusing. After a brief discussion, the Commission decided on the following changes to this section: (d) This process of eliminating eandidates a candidate and transferring their votes the votes of that candidate to the next -ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots or there is only one continuing candidate. The Commission then discussed the issue of separate implementation of ranked ballot voting for single seat elections, such as the Mayor, versus multiple seat elections, such as the City Council. Mr. Genellie reviewed the arguments for separate implementation: i.e. that part of the difficulty . of implementing RBV is the cost of either acquiring new voting machines or reprogramming existing voting machines. If is possible that other jurisdictions might adopt RBV, thus making implementation less costly. However, if the other jurisdictions adopt RBV and their machines are only programmed for single seat elections, the City of Hopkins could still experience significant costs in programming machines for multiple seat elections. One argument against separate implementation would be that the Mayor would be elected using ranked ballot voting while the Council Members would be elected by plurality. Commissioner Gross asked for a motion on the question. Commissioner Hesch moved and Commissioner Bob Miller seconded a motion to give the City Council the option to have a separate implementation of Ranked Ballot Voting for single seat elections. The motion was approved unanimously. The Commission then discussed the next steps to be taken. After discussion, Commissioner Bob Miller moved and Commissioner Hesch seconded a motion to present the draft ordinance to the City Council at the next available Worksession, with the understanding that if the Council finds no significant issues with the ordinance, the Charter Commission would reconvene to adopt a resolution recommending the adoption of an ordinance that would amend the City Charter to allow Ranked Ballot Voting. The motion was approved unanimously. Adjournment Commissioner Jerre Miller moved and Commissioner Bob Miller seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. N Memorandum To: Charter Commission From: Jim Genellie Date: March 1, 2006 Subject: Ranked Ballot Voting The Hopkins Charter Committee met on April 25 and June 6 of 2006 and drafted a revised ordinance that tries to resolve some of the issues raised by the first Ranked Ballot Voting ordinance. The revised ordinance was presented to the City Council on August 22, 2006. At that meeting the City Council indicated general agreement with the intent of the ordinance and suggested that the Charter Commission consider an educationcampaign regarding Ranked Ballot Voting. Since that time the City of Minneapolis has adopted Instant Runoff Voting. The Minneapolis Election Department is now working with the Secretary of State's office on statewide standards for conduct of Municipal IRV elections. The IRV method proposed in Minneapolis is similar to that used in Hopkins for single seat election. However, it differs for multiple seat elections. The Charter Commission needs to decide how to proceed on IRV: • Continue with the adoption of the ordinance adopted by the Commission in June 2006 to include a public education program; or • Recommend adoption of an ordinance similar to the Minneapolis ordinance; or • Wait until statewide standards are adopted. CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA New Ordinance language is in l ORDINANCE 2005-958 blue. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION PURSUANT TO M.S.A. CHAPTER 410.12,. SUBD. 7 The City Council of the City of Hopkins, upon recommendation of and from the Hopkins City Charter Commission does hereby ordain and thus amend and adopt the following changes, deletions,and amendments of or from the following chapters and sections of the Hopkins City Charter: Below is a comparison between the Ordinance 2005-958, which the City Council rejected, and the proposed new ordinance that the Charter Commission wishes the Council to review. Section 1. Section 2. 03, is amended This section is the same. as follows: Subdivision 3. After the City general election, the City Council shall, at their. next regularly scheduled meeting, meet as the canvassing board and declare the results of the election. T4:i-e ean4id-atereeelvingthe higher ember of vet -es f$r a t ; e , , r )ffie ^' ee-t . If the election results in a tie, then the winner should be determined by lot in the presence of the Council acting as the canvassing board. Subdivision 3. After the City general election, the City Council shall, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, meet as the canvassing board and declare the results of the election. If the election results in a tie, then'the winner should be determined by lot in the presence of the Council acting as the canvassing board. Section 2. Section 4.04, is added as follows: SEC. 4.04. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS. (a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a candidate shall be deemed"continuing" if the candidate has not been eliminated; (2) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not exhausted; and (3) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be transferred to that voter's next ranked choice. . (a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a majority is defined as 50% of the ballots cast plus one; (2) a candidate shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been eliminated; (3) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not exhausted; and (4) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked - choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's choices after the blank rank shall not be counted. Changes: • The new ordinance is split into a single seat section and a multiple seat section. This is done to make the counting easier to explain. It also allows for a possible separate implementation of RBV for single seat races versus multiple seat races. • -A majority is defined as " as 50% of the ballots cast plus one. • Ballots where two candidates have been ranked the or where a ranking was skipped are considered as "exhausted." (b) The Mayor and members o,f the City Council shall be elected using a ranked -choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the City and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the Director of Elections may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter's ability to cast a vote for a write-in candidate. (b)The Mayor shall be elected using a ranked choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. This method will also be used for special elections for a single seat on the City Council. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the City.and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the City Clerk may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter's ability to cast a vote for a write-in candidate. Except for the language referencing single -seat elections, this section is the same. (c) If a candidate receives a majority of the highest ranked choices, that candidate shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected. (d) This process of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next -ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots. (c) If a candidate receives a majority of the highest ranked choices, that candidate shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote. cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected. (d)- This process of eliminating a candidate and transferring the votes of that candidate to the next - ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots or there is only one continuing candidate. These sections are essentially the same. (e) The members of the city council shall be elected sequentially. After the first candidate is elected, the votes shall be recounted, with any ballots marked for the already elected candidate now counting for the next ranked candidate on each ballot. (f) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates after any round of counting, the candidate to be:eliminated shall be determined by Tot. This language is replaced with the following: SEC. 4.05. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS - MULTIPLE SEATS. (a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a majority is defined as 500 of the ballots. cast plus one; (2) the first two choices on the ballot for City Council candidates shall both be considered as the first or highest ranked choice; (3) a. candidate shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been eliminated; (4) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not exhausted; and (5) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter's choices after the blank rank shall not be counted. (b) Members of the City Council shall be elected using a ranked -choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however, if the.voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the .City and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the City Clerk may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter's ability to cast a vote for a write-in candidate. (c) If one or more candidates receives a majority of the highest ranked choices, those candidates shall be declared elected. If more than two candidates for Council receive a majority of the ballots cast, the two candidates receiving the most votes shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. An elected candidate can never be eliminated. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected. (d) This process of eliminating a candidate and transferring the votes of that candidate to the next -ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until two candidates receive a majority of the votes or there are only two continuing candidates. (e) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates a.fter any round of counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall be determined by lot. Changes: This is the multiple seat section of the new ordinance. Much of the language is the same as the section that deals with single seat elections. The major differences include: • the first two choices on the ballot for City Council candidates shall both be considered as the first or highest ranked choice • it establishes what happens if more than two candidates receive a majority of the highest ranked choice votes • it establishes that once a candidate reaches a majority he/she is elected regardless of whether during subsequent counts one or more candidates receive more votes. (g) The City Clerk shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with the ranked -choice or, "instant runoff," method of voting. (h) Ranked choice, or `instant runoff,' balloting shall be used for the first municipal election in November 2007 and all subsequent elections unless the City Clerk certifies to the City Council no later than four months prior to an election that the Department will not be ready to implement ranked -choice balloting in that election. Such certification must include the reasons why the Department is not ready to implement ranked -choice balloting. The City Council shall have the ability to accept the certification or to order the Department to implement ranked -choice balloting. (b) Ranked choice, or `instant runoff,' balloting shall be used for the first municipal election in November 2009 and all subsequent elections.unless"the City Clerk certifies to the City Council no later than four months prior to an election that the Department will not be ready to implement ranked -choice balloting for single seat and/or multiple seats in that election. Such certification must include the reasons why the Department is not ready to implement ranked -choice balloting. The City Council shall have the ability to accept the certification or to order the Department to implement ranked - choice balloting. Once ranked -choice balloting is implemented, all subsequent municipal elections shall use this method. • The only change to this section is that the City Council has been given the option of implementing ranked choice voting for single seat elections and/or multiple seat elections. City of Minneapolis Instant Runoff Voting Implementation Update #1 January 3, 2007 Minneapolis voters approved Charter Amendment No. 161 adopting Instant Runoff Voting as the method to be used by the City of Minneapolis in conducting its Municipal Elections. This report is first a series of updates that will be created as the Elections Department moves forward with implementation. For additional information regarding Instant Runoff Voting, please visit the Election Department website at http://www.ei.minneapolis.mn.us/elections. Communication Program In late January Elections Department staff will be meeting with our Communications, Department to begin working on a public education campaign. A link to IRV information is located on the Elections Department home page which will. also be updated regularly as we move forward. Development, of IRV Uniform Standards Because many provisions regarding conduct of elections contained in MN Statute and Rules do. not apply in an IRV situation, the Charter was modified to explicitly state general election laws do not apply. Instead, the amendment requires the City to adopt an ordinance outlining the rules for conduct of an IRV election. Currently, all election systems certified for use in Minnesota are based on Minnesota General Election Law. Without uniform standards cities that choose to adopt IRV may adopt different rules in their individual ordinances. This translates into higher development costs for equipment vendors which must create custom programs for each jurisdiction. Different rules for conduct of municipal elections adopted by cities within the same county -wide system would create confusion and complicate the certification process. It is in Minneapolis'best interest to seek legislation setting state-wide standards for conduct of municipal IRV elections. The adoption of standards will help to avoid future legal challenges and will smooth the way for research and development by voting equipment manufacturers. Toward that end, Elections Department staff is working with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to work on statewide standards for conduct of Municipal IRV elections. Timeline The Elections Department is proposing to run the first IRV municipal election in fall of 2009. As stated earlier, that target date is dependent upon many factors. The next possible date of implementation will be 2013. City of Minneapolis Charter Amendment No. 171 contains a clause which allows the City Council to certify r`� we are not ready to implement if the situation warrants. If a decision is made in 2009 to delay implementation the Council must state the reasons why we are not ready. Later in 2007, a discussion will take place with the City Council regarding factors to consider in making the "Go/No-Go" decision in 2009. Respectfully Submitted, Cynthia D. Reichert Director of Elections Assistant City Clerk By Benson, Gordon, Glidden, Remington, Samuels, Hodges, Schiff Amending Chapter 2 of the Minneapolis City Charter relating to Officers -- Elections, eliminating primary elections for city offices, amending filing dates, and allowing for Single Transferable Vote, sometimes known as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting. The City Council of The City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows: Section 1. That Chapter 2, Section 5 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 5. PFImaFy Elleetions Candidate Filing. Prior to January 1st of the election year, the City Council shall fix and determine the dates fGF the City oriman. Den+icrco ien and the opening and closing dates for the filing of candidates for office_ SuGh Piae.,.,+• ChM" hp held at least 40 day nF_F W the Ge _ml Clen+inn a d- the The time allowed for the filing of candidates for office shall never be less than 15 days (and the closing date of such filing shall never be less than 39 40 days), before the Primary General Election. Section 5A. Conduct of Elections. Notwithstanding the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.17, subdivision 2, or any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this section, the City Primary F'en+ie^ and General Election for Mayor and City Council shall be conducted in the manner provided by law for elections for nonpartisan offices. All c fdidate� .br "�oF a^�.-a„d ��omReil s"e!! '.'^ for tie,T; she +., .,�i.,,,.,, e!ec+! All such candidates shall, however, state the name of their political party or political principle, stated in three words or less, on their affidavits of candidacy and affidavits of candidacy for Mayor and City Council shall otherwise conform with all requirements of the Minnesota general election laws pertaining to affidavits of candidacy for partisan offices. The political party or political principle shall be placed on the PF*;,ary-and General Election ballots with the names of the candidates for such offices. Section 5B. Voting Method. The elected officers shall be elected by the method of Single Transferable Vote, sometimes known as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting. The City Council shall, by ordinance, establish the ballot format and rules for counting the votes. The method shall be used for the first municipal election after adoption and all subsequent elections unless the City Council certifies, by ordinance no later than four months prior to the election, that the City will not be ready to implement the method in that election. Such certification must include the reasons why the City is not ready to implement the method. Section 2. That Chapter 2, Section 6 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 6. Election Judges --Council to Fix Compensation. The City Council shall at least 14 days before any specials or general City Election appoint such judges of election as may be necessary to constitute a full board for every election precinct, as provided by general laws. The compensation of elections judges shall be forty (40) percent greater than the prevailing minimum wage as defined by state law unless the City Council sets a different rate. This amendment shall become effective January 1, 2000. Section 3. That Chapter 2, Section 8 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 8. City Council to Provide Ballots and Ballot Boxes. The City Council shall provide all necessary ballots and ballot boxes to be used for each general and special election held in the City for the election of City officers or for any other City purposes. Section 4. That Chapter 2, Section 9 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 9. Ballot at City Election. The names of all candidates to be voted on at any general City election, Gity pFiFnaF ,'election or special election for City purposes shall be placed on one ballot. Regardless of whether they are contested or uncontested, the offices on the ballot shall be in the following order: Mayor; Council Member; Board of Estimate and Taxation Member; Park and Recreation Commissioner at Large; Park and Recreation Commissioner by District; Library Board Member. Section 5. That Chapter 2, Section 11 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 11. City Clerk to Give Notice of Time and Places of Holding Elections. The City Clerk shall give notice of the time and places of holding general city elections aria at the sanne time and the -same -netise give net;seefthe time and places of holding pFim ary elections which notice shall be given at least 15 days before the pFima general city election, and unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Charter, the City Clerk shall give 15 days' notice of the time and places of holding special elections. Section 6. That Chapter 2, Section 12 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 12. In Case of Tie Vote. When two or more candidates for any elective city office shall receive an equal number of votes at the p^n;aFy eleGti^^, .general city .•1 s soh n� rube.• votes would he s �fF t to elen+ or election or ata special election; aaa-��,�����-.,�� va�i�o�enc <o �ti� nom'n..te ..+ Iea;;st one of }he n n.did_. t_e o Unh umber of votes, the election - shall be determined as between those candidates by the casting of lots in the presence of the City Council at such time and in such manner as the City Council shall direct. Section 7. That Chapter 2, Section 13 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 13. Filing for Neminatiens:Election. All candidates for ReMiRatieR election at any city election shall file their affidavit for such nomination, election and pay their fee therefor, in the same manner as provided in the general election laws of the State of Minnesota, except only that such filing shall be made with, and such fee paid to the City Clerk instead of the County Auditor, and such filing must be made, and the fee therefor paid, not later than the 3M 40th day preceding the p0mar-y general election. Section 8. That Chapter 2, Section 15 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 15. General Laws to Govern Elections --Exceptions. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter relating to Instant Runoff Voting, -ll general laws of the State of Minnesota relating to primaries-aed elections and the preliminaries thereto, unless this Charter otherwise specifically provides, shall, so far as applicable, apply and govern all elections under this Charter and the same are hereby adopted and made part of this Charter. Section 9. That Chapter 2, Section 16 of the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 16. Vacancy in Office of Mayor and Council Members --How Filled. Whenever any vacancy shall occur in the office of Mayor or in the office of any Council Member prior to March 1 st of the year of the general City election for the office of Mayor or Council Member, it shall be filled for the unexpired term by a special election ordered by the City Council and held City-wide if the vacancy is in the office of the Mayor or held in the applicable ward if the vacancy is in the office of a Council Member. The special election shall be held within seventy-five (75) days after such vacancy shall occur. For the purpose of selecting the candidates to be voted on at such special election, the Council shall fix the date of a ,,Fim. Fy eleo+i.,n +o he held not Iesf; thRn +hi.+., five (35) .Jays n o. to r ,,.h s ial eleGti„n and shall also fix the dates for filing of - candidates for such office which shall be for a period of not less than eight (8) days, and the closing date for such filing shall not be less than twenty 0) fort40 days prior to the date fixed for the primary special election. All provisions of this Charter pertaining to pFimary-and special elections shall apply to any erimaFy of special election provided for by this section, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. j Until the vacancy in the office of Mayor has been filled by the special election, the then President of the City Council shall take the oath of office of, and become, and shall be styled Acting Mayor for the interim period, and as such shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties of Mayor, and while so acting shall be entitled to the salary of Mayor, but such salary shall be in lieu of, and not additional to, the salary as Council Member in [the] event such person shall occupy both offices. Whenever any vacancy shall occur in the office of Mayor on or after March 1 st of the year of the general City election for the office of Mayor, the then President of the City Council shall fill the vacancy for the remainder of the vacated term in the same manner as provided above. Whenever any vacancy occurs in the office of any Council Member on or after March 1 st of the year of the general City election for the office of Council Member, such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council appointing a qualified voter from the ward for which the vacancy exists, to hold office for the remainder of such unexpired term, provided that no such appointment shall be made after the opening datelor filing for such position in the next ensuing city afjF general election. When a vacancy for Council Member exists on or after the first date for filing, the person elected at the general City election, upon certification of the general City election results, shall fill the position for the remainder of the unexpired term. INFORMATION BRIEF Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Matt Gehring, Legislative Analyst 651-296-5052February 2007 Instant -Runoff Voting Instant -runoff voting is a system of voting that allows voters to rank their preference for an office among multiple candidates. In November 2006, Minneapolis voters approved this method of voting for candidates for city offices beginning in 2009. This information brief answers basic questions about how instant -runoff voting works. Contents What is Instant -Runoff Voting?.......................................................................2 What does an IRV ballot look like? ........................ How are IRV votes counted?.........................................................................:. 3 Contingencies: What if...?........................................................................... 4 Effects: How does IRV affect...?..................................................6................5 Whouses IRV? ........................... ................... ........... .. ................... 6 Do local governments need authorization to use IRV?................................... 6 Is IRV vulnerable to legal challenges?............................................................ 7 P Copies of this publication may be obtained by calling 651-296-6753. This document can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities by calling 651-296-6753 or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 711 or 1-800-627-3529 (TTY). Many House Research Department publications are also available on the Internet at: www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm. House Research Department Instant -Runoff Voting What. is Instant -Runoff Voting? February 2007 Page 2 Instant -runoff voting (IRV), sometimes called "ranked order" or "single transferable vote voting, allows voters to rank their preferences for a particular office among multiple candidates. Although the precise methods of vote tabulation can vary, in the end the system is designed to ensure that the winner has the support of a majority of voters. In most cases, an instant -runoff system can eliminate the need for a separate primary election.' Electronic voting systems typically allow this runoff process to occur instantaneously, hence the term "instant runoff." What does an IRV ballot look like? An IRV ballot allows voters to rank their preferences for particular candidates on the ballot by indicating their first, second, and third choices (and so on, if necessary). The precise look of an instant -runoff ballot may vary depending on the jurisdiction, but it would appear differently than a traditional "check one candidate" ballot. The following diagram is an example of how an optical -scan IRV ballot might appear in a fictional race for governor: OFFICIAL BALLOT STATE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT Judge NOVEMBER 7, 2006 Judge INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vote, completely fill in the ovals) next to your choice(s) like_ this: - 1 st Choice . 2"d Choice 3`d Choice 4t'' Choice Charlie Brown CD CD CD c:::) Paul Bunyan CD CD o c� Nick Carraway CD CD c� o Mary Richards CD CD CD c� ' Instant -runoff voting is distinct from "cumulative voting," which allows voters to weight their selection(s) by giving them a set number of "votes," which can be distributed as the voter desires among the eligible candidates. House Research Department Instant -Runoff Voting How are IRV votes counted? February 2007 Page 3 Methods of vote tabulation may vary slightly, but for purposes of illustration, an IRV process might look like this:z Step One: Determine whether a first -choice majority exists. In a fictional election using the ballot shown above, voters may (but are not required to) rank their top four choices for governor. In order to win, a candidate must receive'a majority (at least 50 percent plus one vote). In the fictional example, 1,000 voters made the following selections:' Daw Vn+a Tn+ale - Candidate First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Fourth Choice Charlie Brown 300 30.0% 180 179 105 Paul Bun an 220 22.0% 315 100 215 Nick Carraway 200 20.0% 300 312 100 Mary Richards 280 28.0% 175 109 120 Totals 1,000 100% 970 700 1 540 Because each voter is permitted only one total vote in the election, the choices that determine a winner are the first -choice selections only. Here, even though Charlie Brown has the greatest number of first -choice selections, none of the candidates has earned a majority of votes. Therefore, an "instant runoff' is initiated. Step Two: Eliminate the candidate with the fewest first -choice votes. Nick Carraway received the fewest number of "first -choice" selections on election day. Therefore, to conduct the instant runoff, his name is removed from the vote tabulation and the ballots are recounted. This time, the 200 voters who chose Nick Carraway as their first choice will instead have their second choice vote credited to that candidate. The second -choice selection could be any of the remaining three candidates. Following this process, the new totals look like this: Tna+an+ Uivnnff• Rnnnrl nnn Candidate First Choice Additional Votes Result Charlie Brown 300 + 75 375 37.5% Paul Bun an 220 + 25 245 24.5% Me& GafZiww 1100 Eliminated Fed Mary Richards 280 + 100 380 38.0% Totals 800 200 1,000 100% In this case, the first instant -runoff round still does not produce a majority of support for any one candidate. Mary Richards now has more support than Charlie Brown, but candidates must earn a majority —not a plurality —of votes to win. 2 The example here is based on the method approved by voters in November 2006 for use in Minneapolis city J elections. 3 For the sake of simplicity, the voter turnout is. artificially low. House Research Department February 2007 Instant -Runoff Voting Page 4 Step Three: Repeat step two; eliminate the candidate with the fewest first -choice votes. Once again, the candidate with the lowest amount of support is eliminated. This round, Paul Bunyan has the fewest number of votes. Therefore, his name is eliminated, and those who chose Paul Bunyan as their first choice will have their second -choice selection counted. If their second choice was the previously eliminated "Nick Carraway," then their third choice is counted.. This process produces the following results: Instant Runoff: Round Two Candidate First Choice Additional Votes (Round One(Round Additional Votes Two Result Charlie Brown 300 + 75 + 95 470 47.0% Fat1-R, "d "4 � L1-�� _N,Net�—; ,..—t`,-.. 209. z-ti�T'.44 Mary Richards 280 + 100 + 150 A 530 53.0% Totals 580 175 245 1,000 100% This time, Mary Richards gained enough votes from Paul Bunyan's supporters to earn a majority of the total votes (53 percent). The instant runoff is finished, and Mary Richards is declared the winner. Charlie Brown initially had the greatest number of first choice votes, but Mary Richards has a majority of combined support as compared to Charlie Brown, even though fewer people selected her as their first choice. It is important to note that at no point in the process did the total number of votes counted exceed the total number of voters: 1,000. With IRV, even though voters may rank their preferences, they still are permitted only one total vote for any one office. To ensure consistency and accuracy, typically the raw IRV vote rankings must be collected from each polling place and counted at one central location. If votes are counted in "bundles" at separate locations, it may affect the runoff results if some precincts have stronger or different preferences than others. Contingencies: What if...? ...no candidate has a majority after all possible rounds of the runoff? This might occur if there were more candidates on the ballot than there were available preferences to rank. If the runoff were to be exhausted without a majority of votes for one candidate, the candidate with a plurality at that point would be declared the winner. ...there is more than one open position (such as in a city council election)? If more than one office is open, then the requirement for a candidate to win would be different than the "50 percent plus one vote" majority in the example. The amount required would be a modified "majority" number calculated based upon the number of seats available. The calculation divides the total number of votes cast by the number of available seats plus one, then adds one more vote. For example, in the fictional election for governor, with one open seat, a House Research Department February 2007 Instant -Runoff Voting Page 5 candidate must earn (1,000 / (1 + 1)) + 1, or 501 votes. If there were three seats available, each winning candidate would need to earn (1,000 / (3 + 1)) + 1, or 251 votes to win. ...a voter wants to vote for a write-in candidate? A space on an instant -runoff ballot can be reserved for write-in candidates in the same way as it is on a traditional "check one candidate" ballot. The voter could then write in an individual and assign a rank according to his/her preference. Counting write-in votes creates a complication, because the potential number of different write-in candidates could quickly exhaust the runoff process. Some IRV plans call for all write-in candidates to be eliminated if the total number of combined votes for all write-in candidates is lower than the lowest vote total for a listed candidate. ...there is a tie among the last place candidates? Like write-in candidates, the potential fora tie amongst candidates with the fewest first -choice votes creates a unique difficulty necessitating a pre -determined set of procedures. If more than one candidate has the lowest amount of first -choice support, the potential outcome of the election could hinge on which candidate is eliminated from the runoff process. Procedures for addressing tie -situations could include eliminating one candidate randomly, or eliminating all candidates tied for last place. ...a voter attempts to mark -one candidate as her first, second, and third choices, or a voter marks more than one candidate as her first choice? A voter. may only mark one unique candidate for one unique preference on the ballot. If a voter attempted to "help" a candidate by marking each preference, or by marking more than one candidate at the same level of ranking, that ballot would be declared void and would not count. Effects: How does IRV affect...? election administration costs? Depending on.the jurisdiction, voting equipment may need to be purchased or upgraded to process and count ranked -vote ballots. In addition, there may be added costs to develop an appropriate new ballot itself, train election judges, and educate voters about the new processes and procedures. ...minor party candidates? IRV systems might encourage more support for minor party candidates, because it eliminates the potential "spoiler" effect. That is, voters have a greater incentive to mark a minor party candidate as their top choice, because they would be able to list a "major" party candidate as a second choice (if they so desired), which would transfer to their first choice vote in the event a minor party candidacy fails early on in the runoff. House Research Department Instant -Runoff Voting ...partisan primary elections? February 2007 Page 6 Unless a party chooses otherwise, partisan primary elections are unaffected by IRV. Even if a general election were held using IRV, any primary election to select a.party's nominee for office would be conducted according to that party's rules, which may or may not incorporate an instant - runoff process. Who uses IRV? In the early twentieth century, forms of IRV were adopted in several major American cities for use in local elections, including Cincinnati, Cleveland, Sacramento, and New York City. Each of these cities has since discontinued use of the. system. The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, adopted an IRV-style method in the 1940s, which continues in operation today. In 2002, San Francisco became the first American city in recent times'to adopt IRV. It has since been implemented in Burlington, Vermont, and Takoma Park, Maryland. In November 2006, measures passed in Pierce County, Washington, and Oakland, California. Voters in a number of other cities have approved measures authorizing the use of IRV at some future date. The states of Louisiana, South Carolina, and Arkansas use instant -runoff voting for overseas voters in runoff elections. North Carolina passed a pilot program that will use IRV for judicial seats as well as in a number of cities and counties. In Minnesota, attempts have been made to implement forms of IRV at various points in history. One plan, in Duluth, was declared unconstitutional in 1915. The city of Hopkins conducted elections under its city charter using the instant -runoff method beginning in 1947; the process was repealed in 1959. More recently, a variety of municipalities have exhibited some interest in implementing instant -runoff voting. In 2006, voters in Minneapolis approved a plan to conduct citywide elections using the instant -runoff method, beginning in 2009. IRV is also used by some colleges and universities, nongovernmental organizations, and in several jurisdictions outside of the United States, including elections for mayor of London, president of Ireland, and'the national legislature in Australia. Do local governments need authorization to use IRV? Minnesota's statutes require elections to be conducted consistently and in accordance with a specific set of procedures, unless otherwise provided by law. In other words, if a local government body seeks to implement IRV, it must secure authorization, enacted into law by the legislature. Home -rule charter cities are not required to seek legislative authorization if the IRV process is incorporated into the city charter. House Research Department Instant -Runoff Voting Is IRV vulnerable to legal challenges? February 2007 Page 7 Under the U.S. Constitution, states have the authority to conduct elections in a manner of their choosing. Elections have historically been conducted by awarding the office to whichever candidate received the highest number of votes. This, however, is tradition and is not constitutionally required. Any methods of voting must still comply with the rights enumerated under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, including the "one person, one vote" principle. In 1915, a form of ranked voting was deemed unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court because it had the effect of giving some voters the weight of more than one vote relative to other voters in the same election.' A court is more likely to declare unconstitutional any IRV method that has the effect of giving some voters more power than others, even if the voter is unaware of this disparity on election day. For more information about elections, visit the elections area of our web site, www. house. mn/hrd/issinfo%lect. htm. 4 Brown v. Smallwood, 153 N.W. 953 (Minn. 1915). August 22, 2006 Page 1 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — August 22, 2006 A work session of the Hopkins City Council was called to order by Mayor Gene Maxwell at 6:30 p.m. on August 22, 2006, at the Hopkins City Hall. Council members Kristi Halverson, Bruce Rowan, Jay Thompson and Cheryl Youakim were present. City personnel present were City Manager Rick Getschow, Assistant City Manager Jim Genellie, Building Officer Merwyn Larson, Public Works Director Steve Stadler and Finance Director Christine Harkess. Also present were Steve Lewis and Fran Hesch of the Charter Commission. Ranked Ballot Voting Assistant City Manager Genellie noted the Council had rejected the first draft of the Ranked Ballot Voting Ordinance. The Commission worked further on it at their April and June meetings. The new ordinance is separated into a single seat section and a multiple seat section, each of which could be implemented at separate times and which would make public education simpler. The main changes are: 1) the first two choices for Council candidates will both be "first choices"; 2) a plan is set forth for when more than two candidates get a majority of highest ranked votes; 3) once a candidate reaches a majority, s/he is elected even if later counts give another candidate more votes. Illustrative ballots and situations were looked at. Answering Ms. Youakim, he said the software makes the decisions as it counts votes. Ms. Hesch said the Commission_ felt strongly there should be two weighted first choices for Council seats, which is a unique way of doing ranked ballot voting. However, she feels the multiple seats ranked voting will not be implemented for a long time as the software has not been developed. She hopes their solution will be the start of a new trend. Answering Mayor Maxwell, she said she thought it was tried for a single seat in an eastern state, not a multiple seat election. Answering Mr. Rowan, Mr. Genellie said the city clerk only gives a report about an upcoming election, then the Council decides if her recommendation should be implemented. He added the present discussion made him realize the Commission needs to clarify that once ranked voting is started, it can be rescinded only by changing the ordinance through the Commission. He noted there is a slight chance for anomalies: more than two candidates could receivea majority, as in 1981. Then the two highest would win, as now. The other is that once a candidate has a majority, s/he is elected. Further rounds of counting may mean others will have more votes, but that does not affect the first person's election. Ms. Hesch added education will need to emphasize the voter must not mark as a low choice someone they do not want, for that vote may come into play in later counts. Answering Ms. Youakim, Mr. Genellie said voting results would be obtained from the city, not the Secretary of State, and the whole voting results will be as transparent as possible. Mr. Lewis added the City would want to know how'the system operated, and the Commission knows other cities would be very interested in how it worked. Mr. Genellie said they want to conduct a mock election, perhaps in January, in order to test for any flaws before the system is implemented. He would like to do this and public education before a final draft of the ordinance is brought to the Council for a vote. He would like to involve the �._,, actual election judges in the mock election; he would like 200 participants, perhaps August 22, 2006 Page 2 asking for volunteers on the web site or newsletter. Fran Hesch suggested using Citizens' Academy alumni as voters. Answering Mayor Maxwell, he said the education cost should be minimal, at least for the mock election, as staff could run off the material. If the Council decides to use this system, then a larger education program would be initiated. Mr. Getschow noted that if Minneapolis approves the ranked voting system, software should be available soon for single seat elections. Ms. Hesch noted Fair Vote Minnesota would like to get involved and might help with education. Mr. Thompson asked if we could get an agreement from them to help with that. Ms. Hesch noted Hopkins passed the first resolution backing such voting. Mayor Maxwell asked if this ordinance covers the mayor pro tem. Mr. Genellie said the Charter provides the mayor pro tem shall be elected by the Council; if both the mayor and pro tem are absent, the meeting would be chaired by the Council member with the most seniority. General Consensus was to continue as the Commission suggested. Mayor Maxwell asked for a figure on education costs. Hopkins Charter Commission Annual Report 2006 The Hopkins Charter Commission met three times in 2006: March 28, April 25, and June 6. On March 28 the Commission chose Roger Gross to be Chair and Emily Wallace -Jackson to be Vice -Chair. The Commission continued to work on changing the manner in which the Mayor and Council Members are elected. In 2004, the City Council, on the recommendation of -the Charter Commission, established an Alternative Voting Task Force to "obtain, study and evaluate data on alternative voting methods for use in Hopkins." The Task Force submitted its report to the Charter Commission in 2005. The Task Force recommended that the Charter Commission consider adopting Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This method of voting requires that winning candidates have a majority of the votes. The Commission, in 2005, recommended that the Hopkins City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the City Charter that would allow for ranked ballot voting. The Hopkins City Council considered this Ordinance, number 2005-958, during January and (-a February of 2006. The Council determined that there were problems with the method that the ordinance established for electing Council Members. The City Council, therefore, on March 6, voted to reject the Ordinance. The Commission worked on redrafting the ordinance during the first part of 2006. The Commission made several changes to the proposed method of electing Council Members. At the June 6 meeting, the Commission unanimously adopted a motion to present the draft ordinance to the City Council at the next available Worksession, with the understanding that if the Council finds no significant issues with theordinance, the Charter Commission would reconvene to adopt a resolution recommending the adoption of an ordinance that would amend the City Charter to allow Ranked Ballot Voting. The revised method of ranked ballot voting was presented to the Hopkins City Council on August 22. At that meeting the Council indicated general approval of the new method and requested that the Commission undertake an education campaign regarding ranked ballot voting prior to bringing an ordinance before the City Council that would amend the Charter.