• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
October 21, 2009Secretary of State Debra BowenVia email:Secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov1500 – 11
th
StreetSacramento, CA 95814
Re:Approval of a Ranked Choice Voting System in Oakland, CA
Dear Madame Secretary,I write to express serious concerns about granting an administrative approval of RankedChoice Voting (RCV) in Oakland, California this year.Implementing RCV for the very first time in a city requires more than scrutinizing thevoting hardware and software systems. It requires careful scrutiny of whether the city isactually capable of educating and supporting
all
its voters – especially less educated, non-English-speakers, and inexperienced voters. A hasty and badly executed debut of RCVin Oakland would reflect poorly on all of us. There is simply not enough time or resources to roll out RCV in a way that ensures a reliable and fully accessible votingsystem for Oakland this year.While November 2, 2010 (the proposed date for Oakland’s first RCV election) feels along way away, January 7, 2010 is not.
January 7
th
is the last day the City of Oaklandcan schedule a resolution calling for a June primary election
. All plans and resourcesto shift Oakland to a new RCV system must be in place prior to January 7
th
, or we willhave lost our chance to hold a primary.I understand from your staff that, if an administrative approval were granted, it willinclude certain outreach and education activities as conditions. I urge you to not grantany approvals until you receive
proof 
that sufficient resources have been allocated toactually implement an effective outreach and education plan in Oakland that addressesthe needs of our diverse voters, #% of whom do not speak English.
Granting anapproval with conditions to be monitored later is meaningless
. If any non-compliance is noticed after January 7, 2010,
it will be too late
for Oakland to call a June
CITY
OF
OAKLAND
ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA
•
 
2
ND
 
FLOOR
•
 
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Vice Mayor Ignacio De La FuenteVice Mayor & City Council Member, District 5
FAX:(510) 238-7005(510) 238-6129
idelafuente@oaklandnet.com
TTY/TDD:(510) 839-6451
www.idelafuente.com
 
October 22, 2009RCV in Oakland, CAPage 2 primary election (under our elections and scheduling procedures, this is the last possibleday calling a June election may be scheduled). Once January 7
th
has passed, there iseffectively no way to enforce your conditions.The Alameda County Registrar of Voters is asking Oakland to pay $728,000-$1.14Million for start-up and education costs (depending on whether the cities of Berkeley andSan Leandro participate). This is
on top of 
the basic November election cost of $921,000-$1.13 Million. Oakland has been in dire financial straits for more than a year.We just closed a $100 million funding gap when we passed our current budget last June,including layoffs, and just learned we must cut another $20 million. Although Oaklandoriginally budgeted $250,000 for RCV outreach, this amount was eliminated from the budget.
It would be irresponsible for the State to approve RVC without proof thatsufficient resources have been allocated to conduct the required outreach andeducation.
The Oakland City Council will need to approve allocating funds for RVCoutreach and start-up. This matter hasn’t even been scheduled for consideration by theCity Council and I, for one, will not support such an allocation during this economiccrisis.Requiring proof of adequate voter outreach and education
prior
to grantingadministrative approval is vital to your mission of ensuring our voting systems are“secure, accurate, reliable, and accessible.” Even through San Francisco has had severalyears of experience and a well-planned, well-funded voter outreach and educationcampaign, the reliability and accessibility of its RCV system remain questionable.According to the 2005 exit poll, 16% of voters still said the ranking task was “difficult”or “very difficult” and 9% selected less than three candidates in a race “because they didnot know they could do so or did not understand that part of the ballot.” Finally, “self-reported levels of understanding were lowest among voters with low levels of educationand those for whom Chinese was their first language.”SF State’s study of the 2004 election also demonstrates that
education and outreachprior to election day makes a big difference
– with 27% of those without advancedknowledge reporting difficulty in understanding the system, compared with only 8% of those who had prior knowledge. There also are higher levels of confusion amongst non-English speakers, with those expressing a lack of understanding being 15% Chinese-speakers, 23% Spanish-speaking and 21% other language-speakers, compared to only12% English-speakers.Pierce County, Washington (containing the City of Tacoma) provides another example of the importance of outreach and education. As would be the case in Oakland, PierceCounty had to use two ballots for RCV and non-RCV races. But, according to newsreports, thousands did not turn the RCV ballot in at all and many who did treated theRCV ballot like a regular ballot and voted for only one candidate. This maiden RCVelection resulted in so much backlash and turmoil that
Pierce County has placed acharter amendment to repeal RCV on Pierce County’s next ballot.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...