The Burbank Leader of February 2 has this story about the bills recently introduced in California to use Instant Runoff Voting in special congressional and legislative elections.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The Burbank Leader of February 2 has this story about the bills recently introduced in California to use Instant Runoff Voting in special congressional and legislative elections.
P.R. and A.V.
Perhaps the Burlington, VT folks should show up in CA and inform the CA voters about the EVIL fraud of IRV — that does NOT use most of the data in a place votes table.
It’s like playing whack-a-mole.
The article is pretty misleading.
The reason that the special election is in June is because California law permits special elections to be delayed up to 180 days in order to be held coincidentally with the regular primary or general election. Even without the extension, the special election is held between 16 and 18 weeks after the vacancy.
In Texas by contrast, if the legislature is or soon will be in session, special elections can be held within 21 days of the vacancy.
The California Constitution currently requires that a partisan primary be conducted prior to any election for a partisan office, including special elections. Senator Hancock’s SB 1346 violates this provision of the Constitution, but it is possible that a court might rule that since the legislative intent of Proposition 65 in 2004 was to deceive the voters, that this is non-enforceable.
California law sets the date of the special primary 8 weeks before the special general election. If you read Governor Schwarzenegger’s writ, you will see that they are actually for the June 8 special general election, which implicitly triggers the special primary to be held in April.
So the fundamental causes of the delay are Paul Krekorian’s decision to run for city council (in a city that comprised only about 1/3 of his district) less than halfway through his 2-year Assembly term and a California law that permits special elections for legislative vacancies to be delayed up to half a year in certain circumstances, plus a constitutional requirement for a party primary.
The reason why there is a possibility of four elections this year is because there are a primary and general election for the two-year term starting next year.
The Hancock bill, HB 1346, arbitrarily sets a shorter time limit (120 days) for a special IRV election that is delayed to coincide with a primary or general election. It also requires that the governor delay his call of the special election for 30 days, while the county supervisors decide whether or not to use IRV.
The supervisors may make a political decision whether or not IRV is used, depending on the potential candidates. And in cases like this, they might well decide to not use IRV, because it could be cheaper to use a conventional election because of the increased permissible delay.
Without IRV, there is the special primary, which is presumably cheaper than a special IRV election. If there is a special general, it will be coincident with the regular primary, and its marginal cost should be very small.
If the true concern is long-term vacancies, then the solution is to reduce the time between the vacancy and the special election. Perhaps 6 weeks to the special primary, with the special election 4 weeks later. About 1/3 of the time, a winner is determined in the primary, and there is simply no conceivable reason to hold what amounts to a runoff two months after the first round.