Attachment: Elections Hearing Prospectus

Subject: Elections Hearing Prospectus

Date: September 21, 2018 

Dear Senator Allen, Senator Stern, Colleen Beamish, Jennifer Chase, Lauren Robinson and Darren Chesin

Here is an updated Elections Hearing Prospectus for what I am proposing for mid-to-late January 2019.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Mike

Timing of Hearing

January 2019 - last half of the month, 9am to noon on a Tuesday or Wednesday, provides sufficient time for invitations and preparation

Background

1) The California state legislature placed Two Two elections on the June 2010 ballot with out any committee hearings, nor any other meaning public in put nor vetting - neither within the electoral reform/good government community, nor the public at-large (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-top-two-primary-changes-analysis-20180319-story.html). 

2) The LAO wrote the official ballot title and summary for Proposition 14 (Top Two) under influence from Governor Schwarzenegger’s office (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/10/local/la-me-cap11-2010mar11) in a manner that arguably did not reveal some of Top Two's potential trade offs, helping Proposition 14 to barely pass in CA (https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2010-primary/pdf/19-votes-for-against.pdf).

In AZ and OR where the official ballot title and summary was more complete, Top Two failed in both states. (https://greenpagesnews.org/2015/04/30/why-has-top-two-passed-in-two-states-and-failed-in-two-others/)

3) Without a vote of the people, the legislature also eliminated general election write-in voting in 2012 (http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/01/ab1413-gut-and-amend-abuse-would-gut-voter-voice/)

4) The June 2018 California primary elections laid bare inherent structural defects of Top Two, especially as it applies to candidates from the major parties. (https://calmatters.org/articles/democratic-dread-party-tries-to-keep-californias-odd-election-rules-from-denying-them-the-u-s-house/ • http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-top-two-primary-changes-analysis-20180319-story.html • http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2018/05/top-two-malfunctions-democracy-suffers/)

Before that, experience in 2012-2016 showed how Top Two mostly eliminates California’s smaller ballot-qualified parties from the state/federal electoral process, something that was not included in the official ballot title and summary when Proposition 14 (Top Two) was placed on the June 2010 ballot (http://web.archive.org/web/20140718133241/http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/06/6380742/viewpoints-top-two-primary-system.html).  

5) Today there are many calls now for Top Two to be overturned, and its future is being debated in many places. (https://calmatters.org/articles/blog/california-insiders-say-meh-top-two-primary/). 

This debate is not being informed by any meaningful official public process - a vacuum originally created by the legislature’s failure to conduct such a process in 2010. Absent new meaningful public process to inform this debate, the next change in California's electoral system may simply be the result of who can fund a political campaign to change it - not the most desirable approach for a healthy democracy.

6) Given all of the above, the legislative has a responsibility to conduct an open, transparent and inclusive process to inform this debate and lay a public record on at least three topics - the structural defects of Top Two, how Top Two could be modified in place to address these defects, and/or substantial alternatives to Top Two.

Process - In advance of public hearing 

- Develop matrix of metrics for comparison of electoral systems (draft matrix below), metrics representing various measures of a healthy democracy; use of metrics provide ability to compare electoral alternatives side-by-side.

Note: the draft matrix below is a start. I will commit to sharing that draft with people in the electoral reform/good government community in California and across the nation and return an updated draft to you by no later than the beginning of November.  This coming week I am also attending this international democracy conference in Rome and will have additional contacts from other countries from whom I can solicit input as well https://2018globalforum.com/.  There is also this tool from https://www.idea.int/data-tools/tools/best-election-system-test that I will be using.

- Invite public written comments in advance of public hearing,with emphasis on using metrics to compare and contrast electoral systems

- Publish reference web page for public review in advance of meeting

- Invite speakers to address metrics in matrix

Public Hearing

- Feature speakers on California’s experience with Top Two from 2012 to the present: pro/con, featuring academics/researchers, political party representatives (on affects on their parties), others

- Feature speakers on electoral system alternatives to Top Two, including other forms of single-seat district elections, and forms of multi-seat district elections by proportional representation 

- Features speakers on processes in other countries to change electoral systems - speaker on the November 2018 British Colombia referendum on changing electoral systems (https://elections.bc.ca/referendum/what-are-we-voting-on/), speaker on New Zealand’s Royal Commission on the Electoral System (http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system/report-royal-commission-electoral-system-1986 • https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp)

- Provide opportunity for back and forth discussion between Senators and speakers, and between speakers and speakers

Outcomes

 - Create a public record on these issues to better inform and influence California's public debate.

-  Publish an initial report identifying objective structural problems with Top Two, consideration of improvements to Top Two (while maintaining its basic approach) and/or changing to a different electoral system; include matrix, public record from video, written submissions

- Establish a follow-up process to explore and publish in further depth how various electoral models discussed at the hearing could practically be implemented in California.

=================================

Draft Matrix 

X Axis - Electoral Systems to elect California’s State and Federal offices 

Y Axis - Measures of a healthy democracy
 

X Axis - Electoral Systems to elect California’s State and Federal offices 

This list contains a range of single-seat elections (either for legislature or single-seat executive office) and multi-seat elections (for state and federal legislative office)

Single-seat districts - Top Two (as currently practiced is in California) 

Two candidates per district nominated to the general election by plurality in the primary, regardless of party affiliation (‘Top Two’); One candidate per district elected in general election by majority vote (guaranteed majority with only two candidates on ballot)

Single-seat districts - Traditional closed partisan primary (as existed in CA before Top Two)

One party nominee to the general election chosen in partisan primaries by party members only, via plurality vote, one nominee per ballot qualified party; One candidate per district elected in general election by plurality among all ballot qualified party nominees (winner could receive majority or not, depending upon voting breakdown)

Single-seat districts - Traditional closed partisan primary, but using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

One party nominee to the general election chosen in partisan primaries for each ballot qualified party by party members only, via RCV vote, one nominee per ballot qualified party; One candidate per district elected in general election by RCV among all ballot qualified party nominees (majority winner guaranteed through RCV)

Single-seat districts - Top Four (as FairVote has advocated):

Four candidates nominated to the general election by Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in the primary, regardless of party affiliation (‘Top Four’); One candidate per district elected in general election by Ranked Choice Voting (guaranteed majority with RCV, regardless how many candidates)

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-california-primary-voters-20180608-story.html 

Single-seat districts, Blanket primary (existed in CA for 1998 and 2000 elections)

One party nominee to the general election chosen in partisan primaries for each ballot qualified party, but where all voters can vote in different party primaries for each office; One candidate per district elected in general election by plurality among all ballot qualified party nominees (winner could receive majority or not, depending upon voting breakdown)

http://ballot-access.org/2015/06/01/how-california-and-washington-could-return-to-blanket-primaries/

Single-seat districts, Open primary (exists in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin)

One party nominee to the general election chosen in partisan primaries for each ballot qualified party, but where all voters can vote in any party primary, but only in that party primary; One candidate per district elected in general election by plurality among all ballot qualified party nominees (winner could receive majority or not, depending upon voting breakdown)

Single-seat districts, Semi-closed primary (similar to blanket primary, but gives parties choice whether to open their primaries)

One party nominee to the general election chosen in partisan primaries for each ballot qualified party, but where voters can vote in different party primaries for each office, in the party primaries of parties that have officially opted into this option; One candidate per district elected in general election by plurality among all ballot qualified party nominees (winner could receive majority or not, depending upon voting breakdown)

Multi-seat districts; Party List Proportional Representation (PR), with all seats elected by PR, with a minimum threshold of ‘x’% to win seats, from closed-lists or open-lists  

http://www.fairvote.org/how_proportional_representation_elections_work
https://www.fairvote.org/electoral_systems#research_electoralsystems101

Multi-seat and single-seat districts combined: Multi-Member Proportional (MMP),(with compensatory MMP), with single seat district seats elected by one of several options, and multi-seat district seats elected by PR, with a minimum threshold of ‘x’% to win seats, from closed-lists or open lists   

http://www.fairvote.org/how_proportional_representation_elections_work
https://www.fairvote.org/electoral_systems#research_electoralsystems101
http://archive.fairvote.org/factshts/partylst.htm

\Multi-seat districts, Proportional Representation by Ranked Choice Voting; with all seats elected by ranked-choice voting 
https://www.fairvote.org/fair_rep_in_congress

Y Axis - Measures of a healthy democracy

Representation 

• racial, gender, demographic, diversity
• partisan, multi-partisan, non-partisan
• majority/minority/proportional
• California Voting Rights Act
• geographic, at-large 
• ability of voter to express their preferences for candidate(s), party(ies) of choice in primary and general election 
• ability of voter to elect someone representing their views

‘Spoiling’/vote-splitting resulting in other than voters preference

Design of ballot/ballot confusion/disqualified votes

Single-seat races - majority winner/plurality winner?

How affect redistricting process?

How addresses gerrymandering - racial, incumbents, partisan

Cost of Running/Cost of Being Elected

How affect ability to provide public financing

How affect Voter Turnout

Number of ballot qualified parties/How parties qualify for ballot/How parties retain ballot status

Influence on party registration/affiliation

Can all ballot-qualified parties have candidates in primary and general elections?

Can independent candidates qualify for primary and general election ballot?

Are write-in options available in primary and general elections?

Bi-Cameral vs. Unicameral

Size of California Legislature