|
Alameda
Times-Star
Reform in the works for
runoffs: Council directing two measures to be readied for
voters to consider on the March ballot
By Ben Barron
Monday,
October 27, 2003
BERKELEY
-- The Berkeley City Council took the first steps last week toward
retooling the city's electoral system, which city officials have
criticized as costly and inhibitive of voter turnout.
"The
current system is confusing," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates.
"There's a real problem now and we need to solve it."
Following three
council straw polls, Bates directed City Clerk Sherry Kelly to draft
two measures for the March ballot that would alter the city's runoff
electoral system and make it more difficult for candidates to enter
city races. The measures will likely be approved by the council next
month and will require majority support from voters.
One
change likely slated for the March ballot will move the date for
city runoff elections to February. Under the current system, if no
city council, mayoral or city auditor candidate receives 45 percent
of the vote at the city's November election, the top two candidates
face a new election four weeks later.
But
because election materials take as many as 120 days to purchase and
receive, the Berkeley city clerk has been forced to predict the need
for a runoff election weeks before votes are cast. This could lead
to thousands of wasted dollars if no runoff is needed, Kelly said.
A runoff
election can cost as much as $275,000 and typically sees a 50
percent reduction in voter turnout.
The
council also supported lowering the runoff threshold to 40 percent
of the vote, making the need for a runoff election less likely.
Although
most council members supported the change, it faced some criticism.
Extending the
date of runoff elections will force possibly unwanted three-month
extended lame-duck periods on exiting council members, Councilwoman
Betty Olds said.
The
changes will extend the campaigning time and money needed from
candidates by three months. Putting in that effort for two elections
will place a heavy psychological burden on candidates involved, said
Councilmember Gordon Wozniak.
The
council also rejected a proposal to include an instant runoff voting
system in lieu of the current runoff process, despite public appeals
in favor of it and vocal support from some council members.
In its
final decision, the council supported changing the requirements for
candidacy in a city election, making it more difficult for people to
run.
City
council candidates would be required to pay $150 to run for office,
mayoral candidates would face a $300 requirement and other citywide
positions would require a $200 filing fee. The council supported
implementing exemptions for low-income candidates, as well as a
clause allowing signatures to take the place of the fees.
The
council will reconsider placing the instant runoff voting system on
the November ballot at a meeting next May.
The
instant runoff system allows voters to rank their candidate
preferences rather than choose only one candidate. It would thus
eliminate the need for a separate runoff election.
Proponents say it
offers third-party candidates a better chance of victory, increasing
voter interest and turnout.
But
critics of the instant runoff system challenged claims it would be
significantly cheaper and quicker than alternative voting systems.
"Under
instant runoff voting, it still takes three to four weeks to certify
elections," Wozniak said. "There's nothing instant about it and
nothing cheap."
Instant
runoff could also increase the difficulty in completing a ballot,
Wozniak said, noting an instant runoff at the recent recall election
would have required voters to rank all 135 gubernatorial candidates.
|
