DOCSLIB.ORG

Amicus Brief of Fairvote

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Amicus Brief of Fairvote NOS. 05-35780 & 05-35774 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al., Appellees/Plaintiffs, WASHINGTON STATE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, et al. Appellees/Plaintiff Intervenors, LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF WASHINGTON STATE, et al., Appellee/Plaintiff Intervenors, v. DEAN LOGAN, King County Records & Elections Division Manager, et al., Defendants, STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al. Appellants/Defendant Intervenors, WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE, Appelant/Defendant Intervenor ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE No. C05-0927 The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly United States District Court Judge AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF FAIRVOTE – THE CENTER FOR VOTING AND DEMOCRACY, JACK BENNETTO, JOHN R. BURBANK, GEORGE K. CHEUNG, JEROME R. CRONK, TODD DONOVAN, GERRICK W. DUDLEY, ROBERT KELLER, DAVID KORTEN, FRANCES KORTEN, BECKY LIEBMAN, KRIST NOVOSELIC, AND NADINE SHIROMA, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE Jerome R. Cronk, Attorney at Law WSBA #357 17544 Midvale Avenue North, Suite 107 Shoreline, WA 98133 (206) 542-3181 Page 1 RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and Ninth Circuit Rule 26.1, Amicus Curiae FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy (“FairVote”) hereby states that it is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia under the name “Center for Voting and Democracy.” FairVote has no parent corporation, and no publicly traded company owns 10 percent or more of the stock of FairVote, given that FairVote issues no stock and thus has not shareholders. Dated: October 25, 2006 ____________________________ Jerome R. Cronk WSBA #357 Attorney at Law 17544 Midvale Avenue North, Suite 107 Shoreline, WA 98133 Attorney for Amici Curiae FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy, et al. Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….……...….6 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ……………………………………………………………………………….8 STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………………………………………..12 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ……………………………………….…14 ARGUMENT………………………………………...……………………17 I. VOTING SYSTEMS ARE COMPOSED OF MULTIPLE PARTS WITH DISCRETE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS THAT SHOULD BE ANALYZED AND CAN BE MODIFIED SEPARATELY…………………………….……………………...…17 A. No Voting System Is Perfect, But All Can Be Tailored to Better Meet Desired Goals……………………………….…………………………….17 B. At Least Some of Initiative 872’s First Amendment ProBlems Arise From Electoral Consequences Not Intrinsic to the Top- Two System……………………………...…………………..………..18 II. MODIFYING THE TOP-TWO PRIMARY WITH A RANKED CHOICE VOTING METHOD WOULD ALLEVIATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BURDENS PLACED ON PARTIES BY THE SELF-IDENTIFICATION PROVISION OF INITIATIVE 872, WHILE RETAINING INCREASED VOTER CHOICE……………………………………………………………..21 Page 3 A. The Top-Two Primary System in Question Could Be Easily Modified to Use a Ranked Choice Voting System, Without Losing the Defining Characteristics of the Challenged Top- Two System…………………………………………………….21 B. Ranked Choice Voting Systems Would Eliminate the Danger of Multiple Candidates Diluting a Party’s Overall Electoral Strength……………………………………………………..….22 C. Modifying Initiative 872 with a Ranked Choice Voting Method Would Allow for the Self-Identification Provision to Be Dispensed with Entirely While Allowing for Parties to Nominate or Endorse Candidates Without Diminishing the Intended Voter Choice Benefits………………………………24 D. Ranked Choice Voting Methods Have Been And Are Currently Used In The United States And In Other Countries…………………………………………..…………...26 E. Washington State Has in the Past Used Ranked Choice Voting Methods, and Interest in these Fair and Efficient Voting Systems Grows Throughout the State……………………………………...…………………...…26 F. Additional Methods of Implementing Ranked Choice Voting Systems In Washington Exist, And Their FlexiBility In Implementation Allows Them To Be Used Both Within or In Place of the Top-Two System………………………………….27 1. A One-Round “Blanket” Ranked Choice General Election Without Either a Primary or Any Kind of Nominating Process…………………………………..…..28 2. Multi-Seat Districts with a Choice Voting Method for the Election of State Representatives………..………………30 III. THE PROPOSED REFORMS ARE VALID UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION……………………………….………………….33 Page 4 A. Ranked Choice Voting Methods Are Fully CompatiBle With The Voting Rights Act As They Protect Minority Voting Strength In Multi-Seat Districts………………………………..34 B. A Ranked Ballot Voting Method Is Consistent With The United States Constitution’s One Person One Vote Requirement……36 IV. THE PROPOSED REFORMS ARE ALL VALID UNDER THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION…………….……..…37 CONCLUSION………………………….……………………………..….38 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ………………………………..….40 Page 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE Cases Holder v. Hall , 512 U.S. 874 (June 30, 1994)……………………………...34 McSweeney v. City of Cambridge , 665 N.E.2d 11 (Mass. 1996)…………..35 Moore v. Election Comm’rs of Cambridge , 35 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 1941)…36 State v. Nichols , 50 Wash. 508, 97 P. 728 (1908)……………………...27, 37 Thornburg v. Gingles , 478 U.S. 30 (1986)…………………………………34 Wesberry v. Sanders , 376 U.S. 1 (1964)……………………………….32, 36 Statutes and Regulations 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) (2004)………………………………………………...34 2005 Wa. ALS 153…………………………………………………………27 Vancouver, WA City Charter § 9.03 (2004)……………………………….27 Constitutions Wash. Const. Art. I, § 19…………………………………………………...37 Wash. Const. Art. II, § 43………………………………………………….37 Other Authorities Douglas Amy, Real Choices, New Voices (1993)………………………….35 Page 6 Kenneth J. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values (Yale University Press 1963)…………………………………………………………………17 Hugh Bone and Belle Zeller, The Repeal of PR in New York City: Ten Years in Retrospect , American Political Science Review 42, 1127-48 (December 1948)………………………………………………………………………..30 Richard Derham, The “Cajun” Primary: Unintended Consequences in Political Reform, Washington Policy Center (January 1, 2005) at http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/ElectionLaws/PNPrimary 01-10.html… .30 Steven J. Mulroy, Alternative Ways Out: A Remedial Road Map for the Use of Alternative Electoral Systems as Voting Rights Act Remedies , 77 N.C. L. Rev. 1867………………………………………………………………26, 35 Steven J. Mulroy, The Way Out: A Legal Standard for Imposing Alternative Electoral Systems as Voting Rights Remedies , 33 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 333 (1998)………………………………………………………………….22 United States Census Bureau , Geographical Mobility: 1995-2000 , Census 2000 Brief at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-28.pdf……….32 Page 7 INTERESTS OF AMICI FairVote - The Center for Voting and Democracy (“FairVote”) is a national non-partisan, non-profit corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia for educational purposes. FairVote researches and distributes information on the impact of electoral structures on voter participation and representation and advocates for fairer electoral systems that would benefit the public interest. FairVote has been active in encouraging government officials, judges and the public to explore alternatives to current approaches to plurality elections and winner-take-all electoral systems, and has over the years done extensive work in attempting to implement electoral reforms in Washington state, including instant runoff voting. Visit www.fairvote.org Jack Bennetto, PhD, is a Seattle resident, Washington state voter and the Electoral Coordinator for the Green Party of Seattle. He is a founding member of FairVote - The Center for Voting and Democracy. John R. Burbank is a Washington state voter and the Executive Director of The Economic Opportunity Institute (“EOI”), a Seattle-based nonpartisan, nonprofit, public policy institute, started in 1998, to define the policy debate on the issue of economic security. EOI focuses on concerns shared by Page 8 middle-class families and low-income workers. The issue of voting touches fundamentally upon these goals. He was political director of AFL-CIO COPE in the early 1990s. George K. Cheung is a Washington state voter and an activist with ROAR (Raising Our Asian Pacific American Representation). He is the founder of Equal Rights Washington, a statewide LGBT advocacy organization. Jerome R. Cronk is a Seattle attorney who has handled election law cases. He was profiled in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article last year about his efforts with Instant Runoff Voting Washington, a 2004 effort to place a ranked voting ballot measure on the Washington state ballot. His clients include the Green Party of Washington. Todd Donovan is a Professor of Political Science who studies elections and representation. He is a registered voter in Washington, was a candidate for (non-partisan) elected office in Nov. 2004, and was elected and served as the alternate Presidential Elector from Washington's 2nd Congressional District in 2004. Page 9 Gerrick W. Dudley is a registered voter in Washington state and he wants his vote to be “counted for the person I'd like to see in office.” Toward that end, he is in favor of paper trails, IRV, proportional voting, etc. Robert Kuller is a registered voter from Bellingham, Washington, Keller earned his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and after teaching at a half-dozen institutions, retired in 1994 from Fairhaven College, Western Washington University. Dr. Robert Korten is a Washington voter who holds MBA and Ph.D. degrees from the Stanford Business School and has thirty years experience as a development worker in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He has authored numerous
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1
    1 Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1 Richard B. Darlington Cornell University Abstract For decades, the minimax voting system was well known to experts on voting systems, but was not widely considered to be one of the best systems. But in recent years, two important experts, Nicolaus Tideman and Andrew Myers, have both recognized minimax as one of the best systems. I agree with that. This paper presents my own reasons for preferring minimax. The paper explicitly discusses about 20 systems. Comments invited. [email protected] Copyright Richard B. Darlington May be distributed free for non-commercial purposes Keywords Voting system Condorcet Minimax 1. Many thanks to Nicolaus Tideman, Andrew Myers, Sharon Weinberg, Eduardo Marchena, my wife Betsy Darlington, and my daughter Lois Darlington, all of whom contributed many valuable suggestions. 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and summary 3 2. The variety of voting systems 4 3. Some electoral criteria violated by minimax’s competitors 6 Monotonicity 7 Strategic voting 7 Completeness 7 Simplicity 8 Ease of voting 8 Resistance to vote-splitting and spoiling 8 Straddling 8 Condorcet consistency (CC) 8 4. Dismissing eight criteria violated by minimax 9 4.1 The absolute loser, Condorcet loser, and preference inversion criteria 9 4.2 Three anti-manipulation criteria 10 4.3 SCC/IIA 11 4.4 Multiple districts 12 5. Simulation studies on voting systems 13 5.1. Why our computer simulations use spatial models of voter behavior 13 5.2 Four computer simulations 15 5.2.1 Features and purposes of the studies 15 5.2.2 Further description of the studies 16 5.2.3 Results and discussion 18 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Winner Voting Method Comparison Chart
    Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart This chart compares the most widely discussed voting methods for electing a single winner (and thus does not deal with multi-seat or proportional representation methods). There are countless possible evaluation criteria. The Criteria at the top of the list are those we believe are most important to U.S. voters. Plurality Two- Instant Approval4 Range5 Condorcet Borda (FPTP)1 Round Runoff methods6 Count7 Runoff2 (IRV)3 resistance to low9 medium high11 medium12 medium high14 low15 spoilers8 10 13 later-no-harm yes17 yes18 yes19 no20 no21 no22 no23 criterion16 resistance to low25 high26 high27 low28 low29 high30 low31 strategic voting24 majority-favorite yes33 yes34 yes35 no36 no37 yes38 no39 criterion32 mutual-majority no41 no42 yes43 no44 no45 yes/no 46 no47 criterion40 prospects for high49 high50 high51 medium52 low53 low54 low55 U.S. adoption48 Condorcet-loser no57 yes58 yes59 no60 no61 yes/no 62 yes63 criterion56 Condorcet- no65 no66 no67 no68 no69 yes70 no71 winner criterion64 independence of no73 no74 yes75 yes/no 76 yes/no 77 yes/no 78 no79 clones criterion72 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 monotonicity yes no no yes yes yes/no yes criterion80 prepared by FairVote: The Center for voting and Democracy (April 2009). References Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks (1991). “Monotonicity in Electoral Systems”. American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June): 531-537. Brewer, Albert P. (1993). “First- and Secon-Choice Votes in Alabama”. The Alabama Review, A Quarterly Review of Alabama History, Vol. ?? (April): ?? - ?? Burgin, Maggie (1931). The Direct Primary System in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • High School Voter Registration FAQ
    High School Voter Registration FAQ Do you need to be 18 years old to register to vote? No. Although laws vary from state to state, all states let at least some 17 year olds register. Most states only require that a person be at least 18 years of age by the next election. Some set more specific deadlines, such as 17 years and six months, and two states, Florida and Hawaii, even allow people to register at 16 years of age. Do some places already use this type of registration system? Although the 1993 National Voter Registration Act increased access to voter registration materials, governments in the United States still do little to educate voters or encourage voter participation. While many of these other governments use other government records such as a national citizen registry, basing a registration system in high schools is more practical in the United States due to the decentralized nature of our electoral system. Does High School Registration work at either the state or local level? Yes. While it would be great to have entire states using this system, local governments have the authority to implement high school registration at a local level. Local programs would potentially increase participation in local elections, especially ones that directly affect schools, and could also serve as a pilot program for implementation at the state level. I like the idea of helping high school students register to vote; however, I am uncomfortable with making registration a requirement. First of all, remember that compulsory registration is not the same as compulsory voting.
    [Show full text]
  • Women and the Presidency
    Women and the Presidency By Cynthia Richie Terrell* I. Introduction As six women entered the field of Democratic presidential candidates in 2019, the political media rushed to declare 2020 a new “year of the woman.” In the Washington Post, one political commentator proclaimed that “2020 may be historic for women in more ways than one”1 given that four of these woman presidential candidates were already holding a U.S. Senate seat. A writer for Vox similarly hailed the “unprecedented range of solid women” seeking the nomination and urged Democrats to nominate one of them.2 Politico ran a piece definitively declaring that “2020 will be the year of the woman” and went on to suggest that the “Democratic primary landscape looks to be tilted to another woman presidential nominee.”3 The excited tone projected by the media carried an air of inevitability: after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, despite receiving 2.8 million more popular votes than her opponent, ever more women were running for the presidency. There is a reason, however, why historical inevitably has not yet been realized. Although Americans have selected a president 58 times, a man has won every one of these contests. Before 2019, a major party’s presidential debates had never featured more than one woman. Progress toward gender balance in politics has moved at a glacial pace. In 1937, seventeen years after passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, Gallup conducted a poll in which Americans were asked whether they would support a woman for president “if she were qualified in every other respect?”4 * Cynthia Richie Terrell is the founder and executive director of RepresentWomen, an organization dedicated to advancing women’s representation and leadership in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranked-Choice Voting from a Partisan Perspective
    Ranked-Choice Voting From a Partisan Perspective Jack Santucci December 21, 2020 Revised December 22, 2020 Abstract Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Such systems can be combined with other rules that encourage/discourage slate voting. This paper describes five major versions used in U.S. public elections: Al- ternative Vote (AV), single transferable vote (STV), block-preferential voting (BPV), the bottoms-up system, and AV with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a `political operative.' Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political operative to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same votes. Specific problems from the operative's perspective are: majority reversal, serving two masters, and undisciplined third-party voters (e.g., `pure' independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ballot exhaus- tion/ranking truncation and inter-coalition \vote leakage." The paper also alludes to vote-management tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. (209 words.) Keywords: Alternative Vote, ballot exhaustion, block-preferential voting, bottoms- up system, exhaustive-preferential system, instant runoff voting, ranked-choice voting, sequential ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, strategic coordination (10 keywords).
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the City Clerk: Elections and Voter Services Division Table of Contents
    Office of the City Clerk: Elections and Voter Services Division Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2 I. IMPACT OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION ......................................................... 3 II. STATE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM ISSUES (EARLY VOTING) ........................................................... 3 III. RECOMMENDED LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 4 IV. FINANCING ELECTIONS: MULTI-YEAR PERSPECTIVE .................................................................... 5 V. FINANCING THE 2013 MUNICIPAL ELECTION – SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUEST ........... 7 VI. PROCUREMENT OF NEW VOTING SYSTEMS & EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 8 VII. PRECINCTS & POLLING PLACES ......................................................................................................... 9 VIII. VOTER OUTREACH & EDUCATION ...................................................................................................11 IX. RANKED CHOICE VOTING – THE MINNEAPOLIS METHOD: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................14 CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an update on several initiatives aimed at improving administrative
    [Show full text]
  • April 7, 2021 To: Representative Mark Meek, Chair House Special
    The League of Women Voters of Oregon is a 101-year-old grassroots nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government. We envision informed Oregonians participating in a fully accessible, responsive, and transparent government to achieve the common good. LWVOR Legislative Action is based on advocacy positions formed through studies and member consensus. The League never supports or opposes any candidate or political party. April 7, 2021 To: Representative Mark Meek, Chair House Special Committee On Modernizing the People’s Legislature Re: Hearing on Ranked Choice Voting Chair Meek, Vice-Chair Wallan and committee members, The League of Women Voters (LWV) at the national and state levels has long been interested in electoral system reforms as a way to achieve the greatest level of representation. In Oregon, we most recently conducted an in-depth two-year study (2016) to update our Election Methods Position. That position was (in part) the basis for a similar update to the LWV United States position in 2020. In League studies around the nation, our current system (called either ‘plurality’ or ‘First Past the Post’) where ‘whoever gets the most votes wins’ has been found the least-desirable of all electoral systems. The Oregon position is no different. It further lays out criteria for best systems; and states our support of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Several of the related criteria are: • Encouraging voter participation and voter engagement. • Encouraging those with minority opinions to participate. • Promote sincere voting over strategic voting. • Discourage negative campaigning. For multi-seat elections (a.k.a. at-large or multi-winner elections), the LWV Oregon position currently supports several systems.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Election Methods in Order to Ensure That the Election Please Do Not Hesitate to Contact Us
    The Center for Voting and Democracy City 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610 – Takoma Park, MD 20912 Phone: (301) 270-4616 – Fax: (301) 270-4133 Council Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fairvote.org Election This Manual is intended to assist Charter Review Comissions, city officials, and other community Methods leaders in determining what electoral systems will best meet the needs and goals of their community. Given that no system can accomplish every goal, this manual will help you analyze the INTRODUCTION consequences of adopting one system over The range of options that exists for electing a municipal government is broader than many people realize. Voting systems can have a another and will aid you in comparing the features striking impact on the type of candidates who run for office, how of various electoral systems. representative the council is, which candidates are elected, which parties control the city council, which voters feel well represented, Should you desire more information about any of and so on. This booklet is intended to aid in the evaluation of possible the voting systems discussed within this manual, city council election methods in order to ensure that the election please do not hesitate to contact us. method is determined by conscious choice, not inertia. A separate companion booklet, Mayoral Election Methods , deals with the selection of an executive. A summary of this booklet can be found in the city council election method evaluation grid at Page 11. 1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CITY COUNCIL ELECTION METHODS 1. VOTER CHOICE Different election methods will encourage different numbers of It is important to recognize from the outset that no election candidates to run, and will thus impact the level of choice which method is perfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Picks the President?
    Who Picks the President? A report by FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy’s Presidential Elections Reform Program www.fairvote.org/presidential Executive Summary Who Picks the President? provides information on where major party presidential campaigns and allied groups spent money on television ads and where the major party candidates for president and vice-president traveled in the peak season of the 2004 campaign. This data is combined into an “attention index” that measures a state’s relative attention on a per capita basis. The results show that voters in seven states received the bulk of the attention, receiving more than four times the attention they would have received if every voter were treated equally. Voters in an additional seven states received more attention than the national average, while voters in 37 states (counting the District of Columbia) received less attention than the national average, including 19 states that received no attention at all. Among key findings: 1) The attention index for the 25 th -highest ranked state, Tennessee, was 0.04 – meaning voters in the median state received 1/25 th the attention of what they would have likely received if every voter were treated equally. 2) In per capita terms, the states receiving the most attention were Iowa, Ohio and New Hampshire. In absolute terms, the three states were Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. 3) 23 states had zero television ads, while just three states had more than 52% of all the ads shown during peak campaign season. Florida had 55,477 ads while California, New York and Texas had a combined total of only seven ads.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Top-Two Primary for Congressional and State Races
    Towards a More Perfect Election: Improving the Top-Two Primary for Congressional and State Races CHENWEI ZHANG* I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 615 1I. B ACKGROUN D ................................................................................ 620 A. An Overview of the Law RegardingPrimaries ....................... 620 1. Types of Primaries............................................................ 620 2. Supreme Court JurisprudenceRegarding Political Partiesand Primaries....................................................... 622 B. The Evolution of the Top-Two Primary.................................. 624 1. A laska................................................................................ 62 5 2. L ouisiana .......................................................................... 625 3. California ......................................................................... 626 4. Washington ............................. ... 627 5. O regon ........................................... ................................... 630 I1. THE PROS AND CONS OF Top-Two PRIMARIES .............................. 630 A . P ros ......................................................................................... 63 1 1. ModeratingEffects ............................................................ 631 2. Increasing Voter Turnout................................................... 633 B . C ons ....................................................................................... 633
    [Show full text]
  • LWV”) Has Been a Leader in the Fight for Fair and Transparent Elections and Good Governance
    How Alaska Ballot Measure 2 advances the goals of the League of Women Voters Shea Siegert Yes on 2 Campaign Manager July 10, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its founding in 1920, the League of Women Voters (“LWV”) has been a leader in the fight for fair and transparent elections and good governance. As part of that effort, its chapters have taken positions on legislation and ballot initiatives across the country on a range of reforms. In June of 2020, LWV held a vote of concurrence on a position regarding “Voter Representation ​ ​ and Electoral Systems.” This action established eight criteria for assessing whether a proposed electoral reform should be endorsed by local LWV chapters. Those criteria are: Whether for single or multiple winner contests, the League supports electoral methods that: Encourage voter participation and voter engagement Encourage those with minority opinions to participate, including under-represented communities Are verifiable and auditable Promote access to voting Maximize effective votes/minimize wasted votes Promote sincere voting over strategic voting Implement alternatives to plurality voting Are compatible with acceptable ballot-casting methods, including vote-by-mail The 2020 vote of concurrence was taken by 1,400 delegates from LWV Chapters from across the country and was approved by 93% of delegates, far exceeding the two-thirds threshold required to establish a position of concurrence. This document seeks to demonstrate that Alaska Ballot Measure 2 is fully aligned with the eight criteria established in June. We reviewed 30 studies, statements and positions from LWV chapters along with supporting academic studies and research from organizations like Represent Women, Representation2020, Fairvote, and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Voting Rights
    POLICY BRIEF // Local Progress: THE national MUnicipal POLICY networK Expanding Voting Rights THE PROBLEM “Have you ever gone to a high Civic participation in the United States remains dismal school and stood in the background compared to other advanced democracies. Low turnout, plus and watched these high school stu- the denial of voting rights to youth, non-citizens, and many ex-felons, means that only 57.5% of eligible voters voted dents run a voter registration drive? It is in the 2012 presidential election, 93 million eligible voters very encouraging and motivating . You did not, and another 96 million residents were ineligible to vote.1 Furthermore, voter turnout is dramatically lower in not only see, but also feel, a sense of de- non-presidential elections. Mayors are often elected with mocracy at work.” single-digit turnout and scholars estimate that local elections — Arizona State Official, Office of the Secretary of State generate an average turnout of approximately 25-30% of the 5 voting age population.2 provide their tenants with voter registration forms. These The economic dimension of this problem is significant: in laws will help the cities’ large number of college students 2010, “only 40% of those whose family income was less than register and stay registered to vote. Such requirements are $50,000 turned out, compared to 60% of those from house- also valuable because renters are disproportionately lower- holds earning more than $75,000.”3 This gap in voting is income and/or people of color. aggravated by the influence of corporate lobbying and spend- Local governments can also play a key role in ensuring that ing on elections and has profound consequences for public high school students register to vote when they become eli- policy.
    [Show full text]