HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-08 CRC Agenda Packet
Date:Wednesday, February 8, 2023
Time:6:00 p.m.
Location:City Hall, Bldg. #A, Executive Conference Room #103
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
Public Comments: Public comments may be submitted to the Charter Review Commission in the
following ways:
In-Person comments during the meeting. Join us for the Charter Review Commission
meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. Please
visit www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings for current mask requirements and other safety
protocols.
•
Submit an eComment. Visit www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings, locate this meeting,
and click on the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on, and
then click on "Leave Comment." The commenting period will close one hour before the
meeting. All comments will be made available to the Commission and the public.
•
Mail or email comments. Submit comments via email to CRC@chulavistaca.gov or by mail
to Charter Review Commission, 276 Fourth Ave, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Please send
comments early; written comments received within one hour of the meeting may not be
distributed until the following day.
•
Accessibility: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request modifications or accommodations in
order to access and/or participate in a Charter Review Commission meeting by contacting the
Office of the Charter Review Commission Staff at CRC@chulavistaca.gov (California Relay
Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of
the meeting.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
Commissioners Buddingh, Disharoon, Glanz, Hopida, Inzunza, and Chair
Scofield
3.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons may address the Commission on any subject matter within the
Commission’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law
generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking action on any
issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Commission may
schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. If you wish to
comment, please submit comments electronically at:
www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings.
4.ACTION ITEMS
The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by
the Commission and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you
wish to comment on one of these items, you may do so at
www.chulavistaca.gov/boardmeetings.
4.1 Approval of November 9, 2022 Meeting Minutes 4
Recommended Action:
Approve minutes.
4.2 Written Communications 7
Communication from Commissioner Glanz requesting an excused
absence from the October 12, 2022 Charter Review Commission
meeting.
Recommended Action:
Consider request for excused absence as appropriate.
4.3 Presentation by City Clerk Kerry Bigelow Regarding City Election
Processes and the Potential Future Use of Alternative Voting Methods
Recommended Action:
Hear the presentation and take action accordingly.
4.4 Review and Discussion of Measure K Election Results 8
4.5 Continued Discussion of Ranked Choice Voting Concept
Recommended Action:
Discuss ranked choice voting and take action accordingly.
4.6 Continued Discussion of Charter Review Commission Priorities for 2023
Recommended Action:
Discuss Charter Review Commission Priorities for 2023 and take action
accordingly.
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 2 of 8
OTHER BUSINESS
5.STAFF COMMENTS
6.CHAIR'S COMMENTS
7.COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
8.ADJOURNMENT
to the regular meeting on March 8, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.
Materials provided to the Charter Review Commission relating to any open-
session item on this agenda are available for public review by contacting the
City Attorney's Office at CRC@chulavistaca.gov.
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 3 of 8
1
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Bldg. #A, Executive Conference Room #103
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
Present: Commissioner Buddingh, Commissioner Disharoon,
Commissioner Glanz, Commissioner McDonald-Hernandez,
Commissioner Inzunza, Chair Scofield
Absent: Commissioner Hopida
Also Present: City Attorney Googins, Deputy City Attorney McClurg, and
Secretary Cornejo
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Charter Review Commission of the City of Chula Vista
was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Secretary Cornejo called the roll.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
4. ACTION ITEMS
4.1 Approval of October 12, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Minutes approved.
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 4 of 8
2
Moved by Commissioner Buddingh
Seconded by Commissioner Disharoon
Approve minutes
Yes (6): Commissioner Buddingh, Commissioner Disharoon,
Commissioner Glanz, Commissioner McDonald-Hernandez,
Commissioner Inzunza, and Chair Scofield
Result:Carried (6 to 0)
4.2 Written Communications
Excused absences approved for Commissioner Hopida for the meeting on
September 21, 2022, and for Commissioner Inzunza for the meeting on
October 12, 2022.
Moved by Commissioner Disharoon
Seconded by Commissioner Buddingh
Approve absence.
Yes (6): Commissioner Buddingh, Commissioner Disharoon,
Commissioner Glanz, Commissioner McDonald-Hernandez,
Commissioner Inzunza, and Chair Scofield
Result:Carried (6 to 0)
4.3 Discussion of Rank Choice Voting Concept
Discussion ensued regarding Rank Choice voting and possibly looking
into setting up a meeting with the County Registrar's office to inquire what
route they are moving towards. Deputy City Attorney McClurg suggested
we have our City Clerk Bigelow present to us in February. City Clerk
Bigelow maintains a working relationship with the County Registrar of
Voters office on election matters.
4.4 Discussion Regarding Presentation To City Council About Charter
Review Commission Work.
Commissioners discussed the swearing in timeline for our new City
Council members. Deputy City Attorney McClurg informed Commissioners
of the potential May 4, 2023 overview of Boards and Commissions
presentation to Council members and indicated that Commissioners may
be able to introduce themselves.
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 5 of 8
3
4.5 Review and Discussion of Measure K Preliminary Election Results
City Attorney Googins congratulated the Charter Review Commissioners
on the projected passing of Measure K and thanked them for all their hard
work. Discussion ensued over when the updated Charter amendments go
into effect.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. STAFF COMMENTS
6. CHAIR'S COMMENTS
7. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Doris Cornejo, Secretary
_________________________
Doris Cornejo, Secretary
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 6 of 8
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 7 of 8
PROP 27 - ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS
WAGERING
NO 823,526 81.73%
YES 184,102 18.27%
Total 1,007,628
PROP 28 - PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
ARTS & MUSIC ED.
YES 617,951 61.49%
NO 386,977 38.51%
Total 1,004,928
PROP 29 - REQ ON-SITE LICENSED MED KIDNEY
DIALYSIS CLINICS
NO 693,460 69.78%
YES 300,307 30.22%
Total 993,767
PROP 30 - FUNDING PROG. REDUCE AIR
POLLUTION/PREVENT WILDFIRES
NO 556,065 55.27%
YES 449,965 44.73%
Total 1,006,030
PROP 31 - REF 2020 LAW RETAIL SALE OF
FLAVORED TABACCO PRODUCTS
YES 604,265 60.35%
NO 396,976 39.65%
Total 1,001,241
COUNTY - MEASURE A - CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX
YES 563,512 57.45%
NO 417,402 42.55%
Total 980,914
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE B – SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
YES 203,223 50.48%
NO 199,384 49.52%
Total 402,607
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE C – 30-FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT
YES 204,238 51.14%
NO 195,156 48.86%
Total 399,394
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE D – CONTRACTING
UPDATES
YES 221,282 57.77%
NO 161,766 42.23%
Total 383,048
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE H – AMEND ARTICLE
V, SEC. 55
YES 260,432 68.67%
NO 118,799 31.33%
Total 379,231
CITY CARLSBAD - MEASURE J – MONROE ST. POOL
RENOVATION
YES 26,576 51.24%
NO 25,291 48.76%
Total 51,867
CITY CHULA VISTA - MEASURE K – MODIFY CITY
CHARTER
YES 39,875 63.57%
NO 22,850 36.43%
Total 62,725
CITY EL CAJON - MEASURE P – ADOPT ONE-CENT
SALES TAX
NO 12,806 60.67%
YES 8,302 39.33%
Total 21,108
CITY ENCINITAS - MEASURE L – CANNABIS
BUSINESS TAX
YES 19,519 65.11%
NO 10,461 34.89%
Total 29,980
CITY ESCONDIDO - MEASURE E – 3/4 CENT SALES
TAX
NO 18,602 50.61%
YES 18,155 49.39%
Total 36,757
CITY ESCONDIDO - MEASURE F – TERM LIMITS
YES 29,730 82.67%
NO 6,232 17.33%
Total 35,962
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 15 of 16
2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)
2023-2-8 CRC Agenda Page 8 of 8
The City of San Diego
Staff Report
DATE ISSUED: 7/9/2020
TO: City Council
FROM: Council District 5
SUBJECT: Consideration of A Proposed Ballot Measure To Amend The City Charter To Establish
Ranked Choice Voting In The City Of San Diego
Primary Contact: Quinton Grounds Phone: (619) 235-5297
Secondary
Contact:
Elizabeth Spillane Phone: (619)236-6655
Council District(s): Citywide
OVERVIEW:
This action seeks Council approval of an ordinance to place a measure on the November
2020 Municipal Special Election ballot that would amend Article II Section 10 of the City
Charter to advance the top four candidates, instead of two, to the general election and
adding Section 10.5 to provide for Ranked Choice Voting in the general election.
If the ordinance placing the measure on the ballot is adopted by the Council, the measure
would be approved if it receives a majority vote of the qualified voters of the City of San
Diego who vote on the measure. This action also seeks Council approval of a resolution
assigning preparation of related ballot materials.
PROPOSED ACTIONS:
Request that the City Council adopt the ordinance in Sub-item A to place on the November
3, 2020 Municipal Special Election ballot one measure that would amend Article II Section
10 of the City Charter to advance the top four candidates, instead of two, to the general
election and adding Section 10.5 to provide for Ranked Choice Voting in the general
election; and adopt the resolution in Sub-item B, directing the preparation of related ballot
materials.
DISCUSSION OF ITEM:
Council Policy 000-21 establishes procedures for the submittal of ballot proposals to the
City Council by members of the public, Councilmembers, the Mayor or mayoral
departments, independent department directors, or a public agency.
Per Council Policy 000-21, More Choice San Diego submitted a ballot measure proposal
with the City Clerk’s office to be considered for the November 3, 2020 ballot. The ballot
measure proposal seeks to amend Article II Section 10 of the City Charter as well as adding
Section 10.5 to establish Ranked Choice Voting in the City of San Diego.
At the June 10, 2020 Rules Committee meeting, the Committee voted to forward the City
Attorney’s draft alternative ballot measure language to the full City Council for
consideration to be submitted to the voters on the November 2020 Municipal Special
Election ballot. The motion carried with a 3-2 vote.
Sub-item A: Introduction and adoption of an Ordinance submitting to the qualified voters
of the City of San Diego, for their approval or rejection at the Municipal Special Election,
consolidated with the California State General Election to be held on November 3, 2020,
one measure amending City Charter Article II, Section 10 and adding Section 10.5 All
Relating to Establishing Ranked Choice Voting in the City of San Diego.
NOTE: Sub-item A is not subject to the Mayor’s veto.
Sub-item B: A Resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare a ballot title and summary
and an impartial analysis; directing the Mayor, Independent Budget Analyst and City
Auditor to prepare a fiscal impact analysis; and assigning ballot arguments; all regarding a
measure submitting to the qualified voters of the City of San Diego, for their approval or
rejection at the Municipal Special Election, consolidated with the California State General
Election to be held on November 3, 2020, one measure amending City Charter Article II,
Section 10 and adding Section 10.5, All Relating to Establishing Ranked Choice Voting in the
City of San Diego.
NOTE: Sub-item B is not subject to the Mayor’s veto.
City Strategic Plan Goal(s)/Objective(s): N/A
Fiscal Considerations:
The amount of $3,767,747 is budgeted within FY 2021 Citywide Elections Expenditures to
cover election costs. Final election costs will be calculated based on the total number of
participating jurisdictions, the number of items placed on the ballot, and other factors,
including COVID-19 related changes to how the election will be conducted.
Charter Section 225 Disclosure of Business Interests:
N/A; there is no contract associated with this action.
Environmental Impact: N/A
Equal Opportunity Contracting Information (if applicable): N/A
Previous Council and/or Committee Actions:
At the May 13, 2020 Rules Committee meeting, the Committee heard this item as Item 2,
sub-item F and voted to forward the proposal to the City Attorney’s Office for further
review, legal analysis and drafting of language and return to the Rules Committee. The
motion carried with a 3-2 vote.
On June 10, 2020, the ballot measure proposal returned to the Rules Committee as Item 5.
At this meeting, the Committee voted to request that the City Attorney’s Office incorporate
the feedback received from Committee, implement the presented alternative language
draft, work with appropriate City staff to follow up on needed policy information, finalize
the language, and forward this item to the full City Council for consideration to be
submitted to voters on the November 2020 Municipal Special Election ballot. The motion
carried with a 3-2 vote.
Key Stakeholders and Community Outreach Efforts:
Members of the public provided input on this ballot proposal at the Rules Committee
meetings of May 13, 2020 and June 10, 2020.
Elizabeth Spillane
Chief of Staff
Council District 5
April 22 2020
Summited via email
Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Elizabeth Maland
202 C St., Second Floor
San Diego, CA 9210
cityclerk@sandiego.gov
Re: Submission of ‘Top-Four’ Ranked Choice Voting Ballot Proposal
Dear City Clerk,
As provided for in City Council Policy 000-21, we as residents and voting members of the City of San
Diego are submitting to the City Council the following ballot proposal to amend Article II Section 10 of
the City Charter to advance the top four candidates, instead of two, to the general election and adding a
Section 10.5 to provide Ranked Choice Voting in the general election.
If no candidate receives a majority of all the first-choice votes in the general election, then the candidate
with the fewest votes is eliminated. If a voter’s first choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to their next
choice. This process repeats until one candidate has the support of the majority of voters. This change will
provide voters more choice in the general election, promote more diverse ideas, encourage more civil
campaigns, and assure the final winner has the support of the majority of voters.
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman.
Deletions are strikethrough italics Times New roman.
The proposed Charter Amendment shall become effective at the 2022 Primary Municipal Election and
reads as follows:
Section 10: Elections
Elective officers of the City shall be nominated and elected by all of the electors of the City except that
City Council members shall be nominated and elected by the electors of the district for which elective
office they are a candidate.
Commencing with the year 1996, the municipal primary elections to the office of Council member for
Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 shall be held on same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election for these offices shall be held on the same date as the
California State general election for that year.
Commencing with the year 2012, the election to the office of Council member for District 9 shall be held
on the same date as the election to the office of Council member for Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7.
Commencing with the year 1998, the municipal primary elections to the offices of Council member for
Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 shall be held on same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election for these offices shall be held on the same date as the
California State general election for that year.
Commencing with the next municipal primary and general elections following the redistricting occurring
after the 2010 national decennial census, and every four years thereafter, the municipal primary and
general elections to the office of Council District 9 shall be held.
Commencing with the year 1984 the elections to the offices of Mayor and City Attorney shall be held
every four (4) years. The municipal primary election for the offices of Mayor and City Attorney shall be
held on the same date in each election year as the California State primary election, and the general
municipal election for these offices shall be held on the same date as the California State general election
for that year. All other municipal elections which may be held under this Charter shall be known as
special municipal elections.
All elective officers of the City shall be nominated at the municipal primary election. The twofour
candidates receiving the highest number of votes for a particular elective office at the primary shall be the
candidates, and only candidates, for such office and the names of only those twofour candidates shall be
printed upon the ballots to be used at the general municipal election. In the event only one candidate has
qualified for the ballot in the municipal primary election for a particular elective office, the sole qualified
candidate receiving votes in the municipal primary election shall be deemed to be, and declared by the
Council to be, elected to such office after the primary election results are certified.
At the general municipal election held for the purpose of electing Council members, the electors of each
Council district shall use ranked choice voting pursuant to Section 10.5 to select from among the
candidates chosen at the primary election in that district one candidate for the office of the Council
member whose term expires the succeeding December. At the general municipal election held for the
purpose of electing any other elective officer, there shall be chosen by all of the electors of the whole City
shall use ranked choice voting pursuant to Section 10.5 to select from among the candidates chosen at the
primary one candidate to succeed any other elective officer whose term expires in December succeeding
the election.
After the result of an election for any office is declared, or when an appointment is made, the City Clerk,
under his or her hand and official seal, shall issue a certificate therefor, and shall deliver the same
immediately to the person elected or appointed, and such person must within ten days after receiving such
certificate file his official bond, if one be required for his office, and take and subscribe to the oath of
office required of him by this Charter, which oath must be filed with the City Clerk.
Section 10.5: Ranked Choice Voting
A. Ranked choice voting is a method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank the
candidates for office in order of preference. Elections conducted by ranked choice voting are tabulated in
rounds, as specified in this division. General elections for the Mayor, City Attorney, and Council
Members shall be conducted by ranked choice voting.
B. Definitions. For purposes of this division, the following terms have the following meanings
1. “Continuing candidate” means a candidate who has not yet been designated as elected
or defeated.
2. “Continuing ballot” means a ballot that contains at least one continuing candidate and
has not reached an overvote.
3. "Majority of votes" means more than fifty percent of the votes coming from continuing
ballots.
4. “Exhausted ballot” means a ballot that is not an undervote that does not contain a
continuing candidate, or that has reached an overvote, making the ballot unable to be
transferred to another continuing candidate.
5. “Overvote” means an instance in which a voter has ranked more than one candidate at the same
ranking.
6. “Ranking” means the number assigned to a candidate that establishes the order in which a ballot
is transferred to that candidate. The ranking with the lowest numerical value indicates the voter’s
highest-ranked continuing candidate, with the rankings increasing in numerical value for the voter’s
lower-ranked continuing candidates.
7. “Skipped ranking” means a voter has left a ranking order unassigned but ranks a candidate at a
subsequent ranking order.
8. “Undervote” means a ballot that does not contain any candidates at any ranking order in a
particular contest.
C. Ballot. The ranked choice voting ballot shall allow voters to rank as many choices as there are
candidates.
D. Tabulation. In any election conducted by ranked choice voting, each ballot shall count as one
vote for the highest-ranked continuing candidate on that ballot. tabulation proceeds in rounds as
follows:
1. The number of votes cast for each candidate are counted. If any continuing candidate has
more than fifty percent of the votes cast on continuing ballots, that candidate is declared
the winner of the election. If no candidate has more than fifty percent of the votes cast on
continuing ballots, tabulation proceeds as described in paragraph (2).
2. The candidate with the fewest votes is defeated and votes for the defeated candidates are
transferred to each ballot’s next-ranked continuing candidate.
3. Once candidate elimination and vote transfers are complete, a new round starts again
pursuant to paragraph (1).
E. If a ballot contains a skipped ranking, the ballot shall be transferred to the highest-ranked
continuing candidate.
F. If two or more candidates are tied with the fewest number of votes, the candidate to be defeated
shall be determined by lot.
G. Reports.
1. Summary, ballot image, and comprehensive reports shall be made available after each
ranked choice voting election, as follows: (1) The "summary report" for a race shall
mean a report that lists the candidate vote totals in each round, along with the
cumulative numbers of undervotes, overvotes, and exhausted ballots in each round. (2)
The "ballot image report" for a race shall mean a report that lists, for each ballot, the
candidate or candidates indicated at each ranking, the precinct of the ballot, and whether
the ballot was cast absentee. In the report, the ballots shall be listed in an order that does
not permit the order in which they were cast in each precinct to be reconstructed. (3) The
"comprehensive report" for a race shall mean a report that breaks the numbers in the
summary report down by precinct. The report shall list for each round the number of
ballots cast in each precinct (a) that count as votes for each candidate in that round, (b)
that have been declared undervotes, (c) that have been declared overvotes up to that
point, and (d) that have been declared exhausted up to that point. (4) Mode and manner
of release. Preliminary versions of the summary report and ballot image report shall be
made available as soon as possible after the ballots have begun to be processed and
counted. The summary report, ballot image report, comprehensive report, and
preliminary versions of the summary report and ballot image report shall be made
available to the public during the canvass via the internet and by other means. The ballot
image report and preliminary versions of the ballot image report shall be made available
in a plain text electronic format.
2. After a candidate is declared the winner, tabulation may continue to be run until only two
candidates remain and the results of the additional rounds of tabulation, if any, shall be
included in the summary report
H. Manual Tally. Prior to the selection of precincts for the public one percent manual tally, as
provided by State law, a report shall be made available to the public that lists, for the ballots
subject to the manual tally, the number of those ballots in each precinct that counted in each
round as undervotes, overvotes, inactive ballots, and as votes for each candidate. The public
manual tally shall check those vote totals in each of the randomly selected precincts.
I. General Provisions. Ranked choice voting elections for city offices shall be conducted according
to the procedures in this section. The City shall conduct a voter education campaign to
familiarize voters with ranked choice voting. The use of ranked choice voting shall commence
with the 2022 General Municipal Election.
[Statement of Reasons and Signatures Below]
STATEMENT OF REASONS
San Diegans for More Voter Choice in City Elections
A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in said amendment is as follows:
Purpose: is to modify the election process in the City to provide voters more choice, more voice, more
diverse ideas, and more civility in elections:
1. More choice. Voters get more choice in elections and ensure that winners are supported by a
majority.
2. More voice. Voters can vote for the candidate they like the best without worrying that they will
help the candidate they like the least.
3. More diversity. Candidates from underrepresented populations or smaller parties are more likely
to advance to the general election.
4. More civility. Voters can reward candidates who engage in positive campaigning by ranking
them ahead of other candidates.
Voters will still cast their ballot for one candidate in the primary, but now the top-four vote getters
advance to the general election instead of just two. As a voter you can still vote for only 1 candidate in the
November General election or you can rank the four candidates in order of preference (first choice,
second choice, and so on). If any candidate receives the majority of votes they are declared the winner. If
no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is defeated. If that
candidate was your first choice your vote is automatically transferred to your second choice. This process
is repeated until a candidate has 50%+1 of the vote.
Offices: All elective officers of the City
Ranked Choice Voting is not new. It has been enacted or used for some elections in 25 states, 18 U.S.
cities, and the State of Maine.
Sincerely,
Ed Chaplin
Representative, MoreChoiceSD Team
Lori Thiel
President, San Diego League of Women Voters
S. Chad Peace
Legal Advisor, Independent Voter Project
Amy Tobia
Local Representative of Represent.us
This proposed measure is also supported by state and national organizations including FairVote and the
Committee for Ranked Choice Voting.
Cara McCormick
co-Founder, Committee for Ranked Choice Voting
Pedro Hernandez
Senior Policy Coordinator, FairVote
cc: San Diego City Councilmembers, Mayor, and City Attorney
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 1 OF 10-
ORDINANCE NUMBER O-__________________ (NEW SERIES)
DATE OF FINAL PASSAGE __________________
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, FOR THEIR
APPROVAL OR REJECTION AT THE MUNICIPAL SPECIAL
ELECTION, CONSOLIDATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 3, 2020, ONE MEASURE AMENDING THE CITY
CHARTER BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 10 AND
ADDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 10.1, TO AUTHORIZE A
RANKED CHOICE VOTING SYSTEM FOR ELECTIONS OF
THE CITY’S ELECTIVE OFFICERS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution, article XI, section 3(b), California
Elections Code (Elections Code) section 9255(a)(2), and San Diego City Charter (Charter)
section 223, the Council of the City of San Diego (Council) has authority to place Charter
amendments on the ballot to be considered at a Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, by San Diego Ordinance O-_________, introduced and adopted on
__________, 2020, the Council has called a Municipal Special Election to be consolidated with
the California State General Election to be held November 3, 2020, for the purpose of submitting
to the qualified voters of the City one or more ballot measures; and
WHEREAS, Charter section 10 provides the procedure for nominating and electing City
elective officers; and
WHEREAS, the original language of Charter section 10 was approved by City voters on
April 7, 1931, and the section has been amended by the voters nine times, with the last
amendment voted on November 8, 2016; and
WHEREAS, City elective officers include the Mayor and City Attorney, both nominated
and elected by all electors of the City, and City Council members, who are nominated and
elected by the electors of their individual districts; and
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 2 OF 10-
WHEREAS, the Charter provides that the two candidates receiving the most votes at the
Municipal Primary Election for a given municipal office will advance to the Municipal General
Election; and
WHEREAS, at the Municipal General Election, City voters will select a candidate from
the top two vote-getters for a given municipal office in the Municipal Primary Election; and
WHEREAS, the Charter provides an exception when only a single candidate qualified for
the Municipal Primary Election and received at least one vote, in which case that candidate will
be declared to have been elected to the office after the Municipal Primary Election; and
WHEREAS, if approved by voters, this measure would amend Charter section 10 and
add a new section 10.1 to allow the City to establish a ranked choice voting system to elect the
City’s Mayor, City Attorney and Council members; and
WHEREAS, ranked choice voting is a method of casting and tabulating votes in which
voters rank the candidates for office in order of preference; and
WHEREAS, this measure amends Charter section 10 to increase the number of
candidates who will advance from the Municipal Primary Election to the Municipal General
Election, from two candidates to up to four candidates for each office; and
WHEREAS, the measure adds Charter section 10.1, to allow for a ranked choice voting
system in which voters at the Municipal General Election will rank the candidates for each
elective office in order of preference; and
WHEREAS, if this measure is approved by voters, the City cannot implement ranked
choice voting until the County of San Diego (County) agrees to consolidate a ranked choice
election with statewide elections; and
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 3 OF 10-
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that City elections can be consolidated with statewide
elections, the measure requires the Council to confirm at least six months before the election that
the County will consolidate a ranked choice election; and
WHEREAS, when the County has agreed to consolidate a ranked choice election, the
Council shall adopt an implementing ordinance in the City’s election code, providing for an
adequate and complete procedure for conducting ranked choice elections; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to use ranked choice voting in all future elections as
provided by the implementing ordinance without further biannual inquiries of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Council now desires to submit to the voters at the Municipal Special
Election one measure amending the Charter to amend Charter section 10 and add Charter section
10.1, providing that up to four candidates advance from the Municipal Primary Election to the
Municipal General Election for each elective office, and authorizing a ranked choice voting
system in which voters will rank the candidates at the Municipal General Election in order of
preference, determining the winner by ranked choice tabulation; and
WHEREAS, the Charter amendments were proposed initially by More Choice San
Diego, a local community group advocating for ranked choice voting; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Charter amendments were heard and reviewed at two hearings
of the Council’s Rules Committee, and the Council, through this Ordinance, now seeks to place
the proposed amendments on the November 3, 2020, Municipal Special Election ballot; and
WHEREAS, the Council’s proposal, on its own motion, of a Charter amendment is
governed by California Constitution, article XI, section 3(b), Elections Code section 9255(a)(2),
and Government Code section 34458, and is not subject to veto by the Mayor; NOW,
THEREFORE,
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 4 OF 10-
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of San Diego, as follows:
Section 1. One measure amending the City Charter by amending Article II, section
10 and adding Article II, section 10.1, to authorize a ranked choice voting system for the
elections of the City’s elective officers, is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of the City at
the Municipal Special Election to be held on November 3, 2020, and consolidated with the
California State General Election to be held on the same date, with the measure to read as
follows:
______________________________
MEASURE
ARTICLE II
NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS
Section 10: Elections
Elective officers of the City shall be nominated and elected by all of the electors
of the City except that City Council members shall be nominated and elected by
the electors of the district for which elective office they are a candidate.
Commencing with the year 1996, the municipal primary elections Municipal
Primary Elections to the office of Council member for Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 shall
be held on same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election Municipal General Election for these
offices shall be held on the same date as the California State general election for
that year. Commencing with the year 2012, the election to the office of Council
member for District 9 shall be held on the same date as the election to the office
of Council member for Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7.
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 5 OF 10-
Commencing with the year 1998, the municipal primary elections Municipal
Primary Elections to the offices of Council member for Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8
shall be held on same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election Municipal General Election for these
offices shall be held on the same date as the California State general election for
that year. Commencing with the next municipal primary and general elections
Municipal Primary and General Elections following the redistricting occurring
after the 2010 national decennial census, and every four years thereafter, the
municipal primary and general elections Municipal Primary Election and
Municipal General Election to the office of Council District 9 shall be held.
Commencing with the year 1984 the elections to the offices of Mayor and City
Attorney shall be held every four (4) years. The municipal primary election
Municipal Primary Election for the offices of Mayor and City Attorney shall be
held on the same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election Municipal General Election for these
offices shall be held on the same date as the California State general election for
that year. All other municipal elections which may be held under this Charter
shall be known as special municipal elections Municipal Special Elections.
All elective officers of the City shall be nominated at the municipal primary
election Municipal Primary Election. The two candidates receiving the highest
number of votes for a particular elective office at the primary shall be the
candidates, and only candidates, for such office and the names of only those two
candidates shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at the general municipal
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 6 OF 10-
election Municipal General Election. In the event only one candidate has qualified
for the ballot in the municipal primary election Municipal Primary Election for a
particular elective office, the sole qualified candidate receiving votes in the
municipal primary election Municipal Primary Election shall be deemed to be,
and declared by the Council to be, elected to such office after the primary election
results are certified.
At the general municipal election Municipal General Election held for the purpose
of electing Council members, the electors of each Council district shall select
from among the candidates chosen at the primary election in that district one
candidate for the office of the Council member whose term expires the succeeding
December. At the general municipal election Municipal General Election held for
the purpose of electing any other elective officer, there shall be chosen by all of
the electors of the whole City from among the candidates chosen at the primary
one candidate to succeed any other elective officer whose term expires in
December succeeding the election.
After the result of an election for any office is declared, or when an appointment
is made, the City Clerk, under his or her hand and official seal, shall issue a
certificate therefor, and shall deliver the same immediately to the person elected
or appointed, and such person must within ten days after receiving such certificate
file his or her official bond, if one be is required for his the office, and take and
subscribe to the oath of office required of him or her by this Charter, which oath
must be filed with the City Clerk.
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 7 OF 10-
When the Council has established a system of ranked choice voting pursuant to
section 10.1, the four candidates receiving the highest number of votes for a
particular elective office at the Municipal Primary Election shall be the
candidates, and only candidates, for such office and the names of only those four
candidates shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at the Municipal General
Election. If fewer than four candidates qualify for the Municipal Primary Election
ballot for a particular elective office, each of the qualified candidates who
appeared on the ballot shall advance to the Municipal General Election and shall
be the only candidates whose names are printed upon the ballots for that office.
Section 10.1: Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked choice voting is a method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters
rank the candidates for office in the Municipal General Election in order of
preference.
Notwithstanding any section of this Charter to the contrary, upon a determination
by the Council that using a ranked choice voting system will not preclude the City
from consolidating its Municipal General Election with the County of
San Diego’s ballot for the same election, the Council shall by ordinance establish
a ranked choice voting system for the Municipal General Election for the offices
of Mayor, City Attorney, and Council member, in any manner permitted by
governing law.
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 8 OF 10-
The ranked choice voting ordinance shall establish a procedure for such an
election in compliance with the Charter. The ordinance shall become part of the
City’s Election Code.
Once the Council adopts a ranked choice voting ordinance, future Municipal
General Elections shall be conducted as ranked choice voting elections, unless the
Council finds that circumstances have changed such that using ranked choice
voting for a specific general election would prevent City elections from being
consolidated with county and state elections held the same day. At least six
months before the anticipated date of each Municipal Primary Election, the
Council, working with the City Clerk, shall determine if the County of San Diego
can consolidate a City ballot that uses the ranked choice voting method to elect
City officers.
The ranked choice voting ballot shall provide a means for voters to rank the four
candidates advancing to the Municipal General Election in order of preference. If
any candidate receives more than 50 percent of all first-choice votes cast, then
that individual shall be elected. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of
all first-choice votes, then the candidate receiving the fewest first-choice votes
shall be declared defeated. For each ballot that listed the defeated candidate as a
first choice, the second choice shall then be counted as a first choice for that
ballot. If one candidate has still not received a majority of first-choice votes, then
the candidate with the next-fewest first-choice votes shall be declared defeated,
and the ballots for that candidate shall again be recounted based on the next
choice in order on such ballots. This process shall continue until one candidate
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 9 OF 10-
has received more than 50 percent of the votes cast, at which point that person
shall be deemed elected.
The City shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with the
ranked choice voting process.
END OF MEASURE
_____________________________
Section 2. The measure shall be presented and printed upon the ballot and submitted
to the voters in the manner and form set out in Section 3 of this ordinance.
Section 3. On the ballot to be used at this Municipal Special Election, in addition to
any other matters required by law, there shall be printed substantially the following:
MEASURE __. CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO ELECT
CITY OFFICIALS BY RANKED CHOICE VOTING. Shall
the Charter be amended to change the process for electing the
Mayor, City Attorney, and City Council members, so that the top
four vote-getters in the primary election advance to the general
election, instead of the top two, with voters to rank the candidates
in order of preference on the general election ballot to select the
winner?
YES
NO
Section 4. An appropriate mark placed in the voting square after the word “Yes”
shall be counted in favor of the adoption of this measure. An appropriate mark placed in the
voting square after the word “No” shall be counted against the adoption of the measure.
Section 5. Passage of this measure requires the affirmative vote of a majority of those
qualified electors voting on the matter at the Municipal Special Election.
(O-2020-129)
-PAGE 10 OF 10-
Section 6. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a digest of this ordinance to
be published once in the official newspaper following this ordinance’s adoption by the City
Council.
Section 7. Pursuant to San Diego Municipal Code section 27.0402, this measure will
be available for public examination for no fewer than ten calendar days prior to being submitted
for printing in the sample ballot. During the examination period, any voter registered in the City
may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the measure to be amended or
deleted. The examination period will end on the day that is 75 days prior to the date set for the
election. The Clerk shall post notice of the specific dates that the examination period will run.
Section 8. A full reading of this ordinance is dispensed with prior to its passage, a
written or printed copy having been available to the City Council and the public prior to the day
of its passage.
Section 9. Pursuant to sections 295(b) and 295(d) of the Charter of the City of
San Diego, this ordinance shall take effect on the date of passage by the City Council, which is
deemed the date of its final passage.
APPROVED: MARA W. ELLIOTT, City Attorney
By
Jennifer L. Berry
Deputy City Attorney
JLB:SBS:jvg;jdf
06/17/20
Or.Dept: Rules Committee
Doc. No.: 2423006
Appendix 1
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET ANALYST REPORT
Date Issued: June 2, 2022 IBA Report Number: 22-12
Committee Agenda Date: June 8, 2021
Item Number: TBD
Review of Ranked Choice Voting
Ballot Proposal
OVERVIEW
On April 20, 2022, the Rules Committee conducted initial committee review of ballot proposal
submissions for the November 2022 election cycle in accordance with Council Policy 000-21,
which establishes procedures for the submittal of ballot proposals to the City Council by members
of the public, Councilmembers, the Mayor, or mayoral departments, independent department
directors, or public agencies.
During discussion of Sub-i tem C: Consideration of a ballot measure proposed by More Choice San
Diego regarding a Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment, the Rules Committee requested
our Office conduct additional analysis and provide more information at a future Committee
meeting. The proposed ballot measure is included as Attachment 1 to this report. Given that the
last day for the City Clerk to file election material for the General election is August 12, 2022, this
item will be discussed at the June 8, 2022 Rules Committee meeting.
Councilmembers raised some questions about this proposal during the April 20, 2022 Rules
Committee meeting, and our Office therefore met with the Rules Committee members to ensure
we were able to address those questions in this analysis. We further met with the City Clerk’s
Office and City Attorney’s Office to obtain election cost data and voter turnout information, and
to discuss any potential legal issues with the ballot proposal being put forward by More Choice
San Diego, the coalition of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) advocates. We also met with
More Choice San Diego to better understand the proposal.
In this report, we discuss the feasibility and potential estimated costs for implementing RCV in the
City of San Diego as well as potential implementation challenges. We also provide potential pros
and cons of RCV and information on other jurisdictions’ experiences with this voting method.
While the proposed ballot measure includes San Diego School Board member races, our analysis
focuses specifically on costs and impacts to the City.
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET ANALYST
202 C STREET MS 3A SAN DIEGO , CA 92101
TEL (619) 236-6555 FAX (619)-236-6556
2
While there are some provisions of the proposed measure that we believe require additional
analysis (or amendment if the item is put before voters on the upcoming November ballot), we
ultimately conclude that the decision to include a measure for RCV on the ballot is a policy call
for Council, and given suitable amendments suggested by the City Clerk and City Attorney’s
office, there is nothing that would preclude the City from including this measure on the November
ballot if Council determines it would like to move forward.
BACKGROUND
In the United States and other modern democracies, elections are one of the most fundamental
components of the maintenance of government. Citizens vote for their government officials and
these officials represent the concerns and ideas of the citizens in government. Voter turnout is an
important measure of citizen participation in the governance of their country and gauges the health
of the electoral process. High voter turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the
current system, while low turnout is usually associated with voter apathy and/or mistrust of the
political process.
Plurality Voting
A common electoral method in the United States is plurality voting where each voter is allowed a
single vote, regardless of the number of candidates running. The votes are then counted and the
candidate with the most votes is declared the winner. The candidate need not win an outright
majority to be elected.1 This method is sometimes referred to as winner-take -all.
Some variants of the plurality method, such as majority voting, require that the winning candidate
receive a majority of the vote, with a runoff required between the top two candidates with the most
votes if this threshold is not reached. For this reason, majority voting is sometimes referred to as
a two-round system. The majority voting method, which generally includes a nonpartisan blanket
primary, is currently used in the State of California, County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and
other municipalities in the San Diego region.
Plurality and majority voting methods can each have challenges. In a plurality voting system, in
races where a large number of candidates seek election, the winner could be selected with less than
a majority of the vote. In a majority voting system, multiple elections may need to be held to
narrow the field down until someone reaches majority support. Multiple elections can be expensive
for the government and requires citizens to vote twice, which can negatively impact voter turnout.
Because high voter turnout is considered a mark of a successful democracy, policymakers and
citizens often support electoral reform measures based on whether they will increase turnout, either
overall or for particular groups.
Ranked Choice Voting
Given challenges with plurality and majority voting systems, some jurisdictions have chosen to
adopt an electoral system aimed at ensuring that winning candidates have majority support, known
1 The candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates,
that is, a candidate preferred by more voters than any others, is the Condorcet winner, although Condorcet winners do
not exist in all cases.
3
as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV is used to describe several different types of voting systems
that use ranked ballots, even though each of these systems has its own unique properties and types
of representation. The two main types include instant-runoff voting (IRV) and single-transferrable
vote (STV). We discuss IRV here as STV is not being proposed and doesn’t fit into our system of
geographically bound council districts.2
Generally, with IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. A candidate can win outright
by receiving the majority of first-preference votes. If no candidate receives a majority, then the
candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate
as their first choice will have their next choice counted. If there still is not a winner, then the
candidate with the next fewest votes is also eliminated. This process continues with candidates
eliminated one by one until one candidate has obtained a majority. IRV is the proposed method
for use in the City of San Diego.
Another relatively common system essentially replicates our current top-two finisher system, with
the top two vote-getters in an IRV system keeping their initial votes, but all other votes for
candidates 3 through X being re-allocated to the top two. This isn’t what is being proposed by
RCV proponents, but it most closely mirrors San Diego’s current system of primary/general
elections.
Jurisdictions Using Ranked Choice Voting
As of June 2022, Ranked Choice (RCV) is the voting method that either is currently used or has
been approved but not yet implemented in about 60 jurisdictions in the United States, including
two states (Alaska and Maine), one county (Benton County, OR), and about 57 cities (see
Attachment 2).3 Note that this number changes as jurisdictions approve and implement RCV, or
there may be legal questions or challenges in some cases.
States
Maine – Maine was the first stat e to use RCV in federal elections, starting with the congressional
election in 2018. RCV was not used in the governor’s race or legislative races (state senator or
representative) in this election because the Maine Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion that
the Maine Constitution requires the winners of those offices in a general election to be decided by
a plurality. Primary elections in Maine and elections for federal offices are governed by statute
and not by the Maine Constitution. RCV was expanded to include the first-ever ranked-choice
presidential primary in 2020. Beginning with the November 3, 2020 General Election, the U.S.
Presidential race is also conducted using ranked-choice voting, per the law passed in 2019.4
2 In an STV system, there are multiple winners in each race, and voters rank as many candidates as they wish. If a
candidate breaks the threshold of first-place votes to be elected, votes from different precincts are randomly assigned
to their second choice. This continues until all available seats in an election have been filled. In effect, this is a form
of proportional representation and carries distinct representational effects separate from the actual rankings of
candidates.
3 Military and overseas voters use Ranked Choice Voting ballots in federal elections requiring runoffs in six states
(Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina) and one City (Springfield, Illinois). Note, this
is a different system than the local voters in those jurisdictions.
4 Ch. 539, Public Laws of 2019, “An Act to Implement Ranked-choice Voting for Presidential Primary and General
Elections in Maine.”
4
Alaska – In the 2020 General Election, Alaska voters approved an initiative to establish
a Nonpartisan Top Four Primary Election system and a n RCV General Election system. Offices
that will be elected using RCV in the 2024 election include President/Vice President, U.S. Senator,
U.S. Representative, Governor/Lieutenant Governor, and all state representatives and state
senators. The first election RCV will be used in Alaska is the November 8, 2022 General Election.
New York, NY
In November 2019, New York City voters approved a Charter amendment to use RCV in special
and primary elections to elect the city offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough
President, and City Council member.5 No run-off election will be held for any ranked choice office.
The first ranked choice voting elections took place in
2021, with four special elections for City Council in
February and March and a citywide primary election for
all five city offices on June 22, 2021. The NYC Campaign
Finance Board 2021-22 Voter Analysis Report notes that
26.5% of New Yorkers turned out to vote in the primary
election, making the 2021 primary election the highest
voter turnout of any mayoral primary in the last several
decades. However, in the general election, turnout fell to
a historic low of 23.3%.6 The report also provides RCV
analysis, noting that 88.3% of voters ranked candidates
for at least one office on the ballot, as shown in the box to
the right.
California Cities
Cities in California who have approved use of RCV in elections are shown in the following table,
which also shows when RCV was adopted and the types of elections for which it us used. San
Francisco was the first city to switch to RCV, adopting the system to elect all city officials by a
charter amendment in 2002 and holding its first RCV elections in 2004. Note that Berkeley and
Oakland approved RCV in 2004 and 2006, respectively, but it was not implemented until 2010.
This is because reconciling Alameda County’s voting equipment with the new voting system
proved more challenging than anticipated. Three cities (Albany, Eureka, and Palm Desert) are
projected to first use RCV in November 2022.
Other cities in California are also considering switching to ranked choice voting. For example, the
San Jose Charter Review Commission’s Final Report (December 3, 2021) recommended to
Consolidate Primary and General Elections for candidates and allow voters to rank multiple
candidates in San José elections via RCV.
5 New York City Charter, section 1057-g.
6 Note that these voter participation rates are for a City-specific election; New York City voter participation rates for
the 2020 US Presidential Primary and General Elections were 25.7% and 61.9% respectively.
NYC Campaign Finance Board
Voting Analysis
•88.3% of voters ranked
candidates for at least one
office on their ballot.
•89.3% of Democrats ranked
multiple unique candidates in
at least one race.
•56.6% of Republicans ranked
multiple unique candidates in
at least one race.
5
California
City
Date A Date
Adopted
Date
Implemented
Type/s of Elections
Albany 2020 November
2022
Projected to first be used for city council and school
board in November 2022.
Berkeley 2004 2010 Used since 2010 to elect the mayor, city council and
city auditor. Staggered elections are held every 2 years.
Eureka 2020 November
2022
Projected to be used for mayor and city council
elections beginning in November 2022.
Oakland 2006 2010 Used since 2010 for a total of 18 single-winner city
offices, including mayor and city council. Staggered
elections are held every 2 years. Also used for vacancy
elections.
Palm
Desert
2020 November
2022
To be used for city council elections; projected to start
in November 2022 as part of a California Voting
Rights Act settlement. (One district is elected in a
single-winner election, with the rest of the council
electing citywide with proportional RCV.)
San
Francisco
2002 2004 Used since 2004 to elect the mayor, city attorney,
Board of Supervisors and five additional citywide
executive offices (all single-winner contests).
Staggered elections, with elections 3 out of every 4
years. Also used for vacancy elections.
San
Leandro
2000 2010 Used since 2010 to elect the mayor and city council
(council elected at-large, by numbered post). Staggered
elections are held every 2 years.
Burlington, VT – RCV Was Implemented, Repealed, and then Reapproved
Burlington, VT first used RCV in its 2006 mayoral election, electing a candidate with a majority
after two rounds. Challenges with RCV occurred in the 2009 mayoral race, when after three
rounds, a candidate won with 51.5 percent of the vote who had not received the most first-place or
second-place votes. Subsequently this candidate was involved in a scandal involving misuse of
city funds. The city repealed RCV in 2010.
RCV was re-approved in March 2021 for city council races and would first be used in the 2022
Town Meeting election.
FISCAL AND POLICY DISCUSSION
Elections for the City of San Diego
Elections for the City of San Diego are conducted by the San Diego County Registrar of Voters
(ROV), including ballot development, mailing of ballots, administering the voting process,
6
tabulating results, and tallying and reporting. The City Clerk’s Office works with the County ROV
to help administer municipal elections. The County ROV assigns election costs in a consolidated
election through the use of a weighted average method which allocates costs to each jurisdiction
based on the number of contests, registered voters, and sample ballot pages.
Election costs vary from year to year based on the number and types of races, ballot measures,
etc., on each ballot, with citywide races like Mayor and City Attorney significantly increasing
costs. Under the current majority voting method, the cost of the City of San Diego election held in
November 3, 2020 was $4.3 million, including five ballot measures and seven races: Mayor, City
Attorney, and five Council Districts (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9), as shown in the following table. For the
previous General election in November 6, 2018, which included eight ballot measures and four
Council Districts (2, 4, 6, and 8), costs were $2.4 million. Election -related costs include staff labor,
overhead, rentals and equipment, postage, and costs for absentee ballots.
The County ROV also records the percentage of County of San Diego registered voters who voted
in each election. Voter turnout also varies by election and depending on various factors such as
current events, concerns, candidates, and ballot measures. As shown in the following table, 83.51%
of registered voters in San Diego County voted in the November 3, 2020 presidential general
election, with far fewer (49.73%) voting in the March 3, 2020 primary. Generally, voter
participation rates are higher during Presidential General elections.
Election Date and
Type
Cost
($ in
millions)
City Races on Ballot Number of
Ballot
Measures
Voter
Turnout* Mayor City
Attorney
Number of
Council
Districts
November 3, 2020
Presidential General $4.30 - √ 5 5 83.51%
March 3, 2020
Presidential Primary $2.96 √ √ 5 2 49.73%
November 6, 2018
Gubernatorial General $2.35 - - 4 8 66.42%
June 5, 2018
Gubernatorial Primary $0.17 - - 4 - 39.77%
November 8, 2016
Presidential General $4.15 - √ 2 12 81.46%
June 7, 2016
Presidential Primary $5.26 √ √ 5 9 50.94%
November 4, 2014
Gubernatorial General $0.02 - - 2 - 44.76%
June 3, 2014
Gubernatorial Primary $1.34 - - 4 3 27.23%
* Voter turnout represents the percentage of County of San Diego registered voters who voted in each election,
provided on the County of San Diego ROV website.
7
Dominion Voting System
The County ROV implemented a Dominion Voting System that was first used in the Presidential
Primary election on March 3, 2020. This system provided high speed scanners and replaced
manual tabulation. While the Dominion Voting System currently used by the County is compatible
with RCV, the County currently does not have the Dominion Ranked Choice Voting module and
would need to purchase this module before RCV could be implemented, if it is placed on the ballot
and approved by voters.
Comparisons of election costs over time or between jurisdictions would not be an apples to apples
comparison, given the change from manual tabulation to high speed scanners and variances in
election costs noted above.
Pros and Cons of Ranked Choice Voting
We reviewed pros and cons associated with using RCV and provide some highlights below.
Pros
Primary goals and pros of RCV includes increasing voter turnout, making candidate fields more
diverse and giving voters more choice.
Increases Voter Turnout – When turnout is high, winners are more likely to reflect the will of
the voting public and act on their wishes in government and voters are more likely to have a greater
say in the policies that affect their lives. Many factors impact voter turnout, such as current events
and concerns, specific candidates, issues, or ballot measures, it can be difficult to specific ally
attribute increases. As shown in the following table, San Diego’s voter turnout rates are similar to
Election Date and Type San Diego Orange Los Angeles San Francisco Alameda
November 3, 2020
Presidential General 83.5% 87.3% 78.9% 86.3% 81.3%
March 3, 2020 Presidential
Primary 49.7% 50.1% 38.3% 60.6% 51.2%
November 6, 2018
Gubernatorial General 66.4% 71.0% 57.0% 74.5% 66.8%
June 5, 2018
Gubernatorial Primary 39.8% 42.9% 28.9% 52.6% 39.7%
November 8, 2016
Presidential General 81.5% 80.7% 67.5% 80.7% 75.4%
June 7, 2016 Presidential
Primary 50.9% 49.6% 41.3% 56.6% 49.3%
November 4, 2014
Gubernatorial General 44.8% 45.0% 31.0% 53.0% 45.0%
June 3, 2014
Gubernatorial Primary 27.2% 24.1% 17.0% 29.7% 25.8%
Voting Participation Rates in Various California Counties
8
those in other California counties, though they are generally below voter turnout in San Francisco
where RCV has been used since 2004.
We note that San Diego’s voter participation rates since 2014 have been similar to that of Alameda
County; as noted above, several cities in Alameda County have used ranked choice voting since
2010.
Promotes Majority Support – The voting continues until one candidate has the majority of votes,
so the final winner has support of the majority of voters. Note that in our current run-off system,
the final elected position also ends up with a majority vote in the general election.
Provides More Choice for Voters – By ranking multiple candidates, voters can still have a voice
in who gets elected even if their top choice does not win. Ranking multiple candidates ensures
their vote will go toward their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th choice if their top choice is eliminated, giving
them more voice in who wins. Voters can vote for the candidate they truly feel is best, without
concern about strategic voting or the spoiler effect.
Increases Diversity of Candidates – More candidates from underrepresented populations could
potentially advance to the general election. Cities that have implemented RCV have elected more
women and more women of color, making their elected officials more representative of their
communities.
Discourages Negative Campaigning – Proponents suggest that RCV reduces incentives for
negative campaigning and increases civility among candidates, because it fosters more choice,
more competition and a greater need for cooperation and engagement of voters. While RCV won’t
completely eliminate negative campaign strategies, as candidates are trying to earn second and
third place votes, there are more incentives to listen to and engage with voters outside of their base.
Elections Costs May Decrease – RCV can save money by eliminating the cost associated with
administering primary elections to narrow the field before the general election or run-off elections
to choose a final winner after a general election (if no candidate has a majority and if the law
requires a majority for that office). With IRV, the result can be obtained with one ballot.
Cons and Challenges
There are several cons or challenges with RCV discussed below with potential options to address.
May Appear Complicated or Confusing – Education and outreach will be necessary to ensure
all voters understand the voting system. Conducting outreach and education and providing simple,
clear ballot design and instructions can help to address this challenge.
Election Costs May Increase – The ballots and the counting of the ballots will be more expensive
due to the need for additional materials. The need for education and outreach will also increase
costs. Eliminating the primary would help to offset or reduce cost increases.
Results May Not Be Immediate – The tabulation process when multiple rounds occur will require
additional time, perhaps even days or weeks, until results are available. Results may take longer
than they generally do with majority or plurality voting methods. Ensuring the tabulation
methodology is consistent with RCV will increase efficiency of the process. Also, educating and
preparing voters with realistic expectations of when results will likely be available could help to
address this challenge.
9
Results Could Fail to Get a Candidate with a Majority – One of the potential drawbacks of
IRV/RCV is that a non-Condorcet winner can still win depending on candidates and voter
preferences.
There Could be a High Number of Exhausted Ballots – Ballot exhaustion is when a ballot is
not included in the final count because all of the candidates ranked on that ballot have been
eliminated during the vote counting process. This could occur due to confusion over how to rank
candidates, running out of ranking slots when there is a large number of candidates, or some voters
preferring to rank one candidate. Note that this is also an issue with the current majority system,
when voters choose to just leave some positions up for election blank on their ballot without voting.
Another concern is that some voters will have their ballots counted more than others, depending
on which candidate is eliminated first. Conducting education and outreach could help to address
these concerns.
Ranked Choice Voting Ballot Measure Proposal for the City of San Diego
The ballot proposal submitted by More Choice San Diego would provide RCV in primary and
general elections for all City of San Diego elections including Mayor, City Attorney, City Council
members as well as San Diego Unified School Board members. This requires amendments and
additions to the City Charter.7 The proposed changes for implementing RCV would be effective
January 1, 2024. Key provisions of the proposal are discussed below.
Primary Elections
If there are five or fewer candidates running in the primary election, the primary would be
eliminated, and all qualified candidates will advance to the general election. If there are six or
more candidates in the primary, instant runoff voting would be used to determine which five
candidates will advance to the general election.
More Choice San Diego told us they initially planned on advancing four candidates as part of the
proposal but changed this to five to address potential concerns. The RCV coalition believes
advancing five candidates creates more opportunity for competitive elections, increases the
savings from the reduction in primary elec tions, and reduces the chance of unranked ballots from
an oversized field in the General Election.
As part of the proposed measure, special elections for Council districts and Citywide offices would
not include a primary and would use an RCV ballot method to select from among the candidates
nominated to fill the vacant office.
Ranked Choice Ballot Method
As we described earlier with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), in the general election if any candidate
receives a majority of first choice votes cast, then that candidate is elected. If no candidate receives
a majority, IRV would determine the winner. If no candidate receives more than 50% of first-
choice votes cast, then the candidate receiving the fewest first-choice votes would be considered
defeated and a new round of counting would be conducted without the defeated candidate. In the
new round, for each ballot that listed the defeated candidate as a first choice, the highest ranked
77 This requires amending Article II Paragraphs 1,6,7 and adding a Section 10.5 and amending Article VI Section 66
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the City Charter.
10
choice remaining on that ballot would then be counted as a first-choice vote and the runoff
tabulations for the remaining candidates would be adjusted accordingly. This process continues
until a candidate has a majority of the votes.
Publication of Ballots
The proposal includes a provision that, for each election, an electronic copy of each ballot cast in
the election, stripped of all information that could identify the voter who cast the ballot but showing
the voter’s order of preference for candidates, would be posted on the City website within 30 days
after the election results have been certified. The purpose of this provision is for transparency over
the election and tabulation process.
The City Attorney’s Office reviewed this provision and concluded the proposed language
regarding the publication of the ranked choice ballots is inconsistent with state law, specifically
Elections Code sections 15370 and 17301.8 Ballots are maintained by the County ROV (and are
not within the City’s possession) and, under the law, are not subject to public inspection except
during the actual counting process, which allows for observers during the counting of the vote. The
City would not be able to legally comply with this provision.
The City Attorney’s Office notified More Choice San Diego and they indicated that they will
remove that provision from their proposal and resubmit to the Rules Committee consultant.9
Estimated Resources Needed for Implementation
It is important that policy makers and voters have accurate facts about the costs of RCV
implementation. To estimate potential costs for implementing RCV in the City of San Diego, the
County ROV conducted research and consulted with the City of San Francisco, which has using
RCV since 2004.10 The ROV noted that more research would need to be done on how best to target
City of San Diego voters without confusing the other jurisdictions in the county.
Total implementation costs are estimated to be $3.5 million, as shown in the following table,
including:
● $555,000 in one-time costs to purchase the Dominion Ranked Choice Voting module,
implement, and train staff; design a new webpage; and provide public service
announcements.
● $70,000 in annual ongoing software maintenance and support costs.
● $2.8 million in ongoing costs per election for voter education and outreach, additional
ballot, and voter information. The County ROV noted that the robustness of the $1.65
million Outreach Campaign included as part of this total amount, may taper off as RCV
becomes more socialized, but expects a high-level of outreach to be required through at
least eight election cycles. We discuss this more in the “Education and Outreach” section.
8 See also, Citizens Oversight, Inc. v. Vu, 35 Cal. App. 5th 612 (2019).
9 More Choice San Diego is also planning to revise their proposed changes to Charter section 66 (regarding the school
board) as they used outdated language.
10 San Francisco was the first California city to switch to RCV, adopting the system to elect all city officials by a
charter amendment in 2002 and holding its first RCV elections in 2004.
11
Items Required for Implementation One-time
Costs
Annual
Costs
Cost Per
Election
Dominion Voting System
Purchase of Ranked Choice Voting Module $350,000
Vendor Implementation and Training Costs $75,000
Software Maintenance and Support $70,000
Additional Ballot and Related Materials
Voter Information Pamphlet (6 pages) $400,000
Ballot Card $200,000
Additional Insert in Vote by Mail Packet $200,000
New Webpage Design and Functionality with Interactive
Practice Ballot
$30,000
Public Service Announcements (audio, video
development, translation, and production)
$100,000
Outreach Program/Voter Education Workshops $350,000
Voter Education and Outreach Campaign $1,650,000
Total $555,000 $70,000 $2,800,00
Note: All outreach and voting materials must be translated into federally covered languages (currently Spanish,
Filipino, Vietnamese, and Chinese).
The ongoing election costs include $800,000 for additional ballots, related materials, and inserts.
Ballots currently are lengthy, and they could be longer and/or more numerous with RCV.
Additionally, the County and State would most likely continue to use majority voting, which
means that more than one type of voting
would be on the ballot. An effectively
designed ballot could help to make this
process simpler and clearer. The sample
ballot shown here is from the Alaska
Division of Elections website. Note, the
ballot includes a space for write in
candidates to be ranked.
Education and Outreach
Because RCV would be new and a change from the previous majority system, and ranking
candidates is more complex than choosing one candidate, significant education and outreach would
be needed. Costs for the Voter Education and Outreach Campaign of $1.65 million, shown in the
table above, were developed by the County ROV and assume spending $2 per registered voter in
the City of San Diego. The County ROV believes this high level of outreach would be required for
eight election cycles. We agree that extensive outreach and education is needed for the first few
elections, but beyond that we believe that this amount might decrease more rapidly as RCV
becomes normalized.
The County ROV noted that the Education and Outreach campaign would target low-income
communities, communities of color, persons with disabilities, state and federal language
communities and the general population. It includes development, design, and translations:
• Direct mailers (printing and postage)
12
• Digital advertisements
• Social media advertisements
• Radio and streaming audio ads
• Video and televisions ads
• Outdoor posters and billboards
• Transit and transit shelter ads
To support education and outreach for RCV, some jurisdictions have added a voter outreach
coordinator/s in their elections departments, and this may also be a consideration for the City
Clerk’s office.
Costs Could be Offset by Savings of Eliminating the Primary Election
While additional resources would be needed to implement RCV, these costs could be offset in
cases where the primary election is eliminated. C osts for City of San Diego primary elections since
2014 ranged from $1.3 million to $5.3 million, depending on the number and type of races and
ballot measures. Some of these costs would be saved if fewer than 6 candidates are running (based
on the current ballot proposal for RCV). However, we note that implementing RCV may increase
the number of candidates that enter races given their increased chances of advancing to the general
election.
Implementation-Related Issues to Consider
If Council determines it would like to move forward at this time and place this proposal on the
ballot for consideration by voters, we want to note several important implementation-related issues
to consider.
• Based on discussions with the City Clerk’s Office, we believe the implementation of RCV
should be contingent on the County ROV allowing the City to continuing to consolidate
ballots. If ballots are not consolidated, elections would be much more expensive for the
City. Additionally, the City Clerk’s Office is not currently staffed or equipped to properly
run unconsolidated City elections.
• The date of implementation should be changed from January 2024 to January 2026. This
will provide additional time for outreach, education, and implementation. Moving
implementation to 2026 also would provide the City Attorney’s Office more time to prepare
a corresponding implementation ordinance, because the Municipal Code will also need to
be updated. This would also avoid any appearance of conflict with the current City Council
as it is outside of current term limits.11
• Revise the proposed ballot measure to remove the provision regarding the publication of the
ranked choice ballots given the City Attorney Office’s opinion it is inconsistent with state
law and the City would not be able to legally comply with this provision.
11 It should be noted that while moving the implementation date would help to avoid the appearance of any conflicts,
the City Attorney’s Office does not believe there is an actual conflict of interest for this Council to pr opose an earlier
implementation date. Practical considerations however, as discussed above, argue for a 2026 implementation date.
13
•Consider partnering with appropriate voting groups to share costs on outreach and
education. More Choice San Diego noted that it has a 503 organization that potentially could
provide up to $1 million in funds for outreach and education for RCV.
CONCLUSION
In the United States and other modern democracies, elections are one of the most fundamental
components of the maintenance of government. Citizens vote for their government officials and
these officials represent the concerns and ideas of the citizens in government. As the country
grapples with increased divisions and polarization, policymakers and citizens often are seeking
electoral reform and solutions. There are a number jurisdictions that have successfully adopted
RCV, and proponents note it promotes inclusivity and participation by putting more power in the
hands of voters.
Based on our assessment of potentially implementing RCV in the City of San Diego, we believe
that extensive outreach and education would be needed for at least the first few elections after
implementation, though that this need may diminish if RCV became more normalized. Also, while
difficult to predict, there could be potential cost savings in elections where primaries are eliminated
due to having five or fewer candidates.
While there are some provisions of the proposed measure for RCV that we believe require
additional analysis (or amendment if the item is put before voters on the upcoming November
ballot), we ultimately conclude that the decision to include a measure on the ballot is a policy call
for Council. If Council determines it would like to move forward at this time, we do suggest
including amendments suggested by the City Clerk and City Attorney’s office in the measure.
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 1, 2022
TO: Brendan Dentino, Rules Committee Consultant
FROM: Elizabeth Maland, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Ballot Proposal for Committee Review
_______________________________________________________
Attached is a ballot proposal filed in my office pursuant to Council Policy 000-21 for the
submission of ballot proposals to be reviewed by the Committee for possible placement on
the November ballot.
Date Filed Topic Proponent
4/1/2022 Ranked Choice Voting Charter
Amendment More Choice San Diego
Attachment
EM/jb
cc: Haley Lesser, Director of Legislative Affairs
Heather Ferbert, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Attachment 1Ranked Choice Voting Ballot Proposal
April 1, 2022
Sent via email
Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Elizabeth Maland
202 C St., Second Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
cityclerk@sandiego.gov
Re: Submission by San Diegans for Ranked Choice Voting
To the Honorable City Council of the City of San Diego:
As provided for in City Council Policy 000-21, we as residents and voting members of the City of San
Diego submit to the City Council the following ballot proposal to amend Article II Paragraphs 1,6,7
adding a Section 10.5 and amending Article VI Section 66 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the City Charter to
provide Ranked Choice Voting in primary and general elections for all city elections including mayor, city
attorney city council members and school board members.
Under the proposal if there are five or fewer candidates running in the primary election, the primary shall
be eliminated, and all qualified candidates will advance to the general election. If there are six or more
candidates, instant runoff voting shall be used to determine which five candidates shall advance to the
general election. In the general election if any candidate receives a majority of first choice votes cast, that
candidate is elected. If no candidate receives a majority, instant runoff voting shall determine the winner.
This change will provide voters more choice in the general election, promote more diverse ideas,
encourage more civil campaigns, and assure the final winner has the support of the majority of voters.
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman.
Deletions are strikethrough Times New roman.
The proposed Charter Amendment shall become effective at the 2024 Primary Municipal Election and
reads as follows:
PART 1
Section 10: Elections
Elective officers of the City shall be nominated and elected by all of the electors of the City except that
City Council members and School Board members shall be nominated and elected by the electors of the
district for which elective office they are a candidate.
MoreChoiceSD.org | contact@morechoicesd.org
Commencing with the year 1996, the municipal primary elections to the office of Council member for
Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 shall be held on same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election for these offices shall be held on the same date as the
California State general election for that year. Commencing with the year 2012, the election to the office
of Council member for District 9 shall be held on the same date as the election to the office of Council
member for Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7.
Commencing with the year 1998, the municipal primary elections to the offices of Council member for
Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 shall be held on same date in each election year as the California State primary
election, and the general municipal election for these offices shall be held on the same date as the
California State general election for that year.
Commencing with the next municipal primary and general elections following the redistricting occurring
after the 2010 national decennial census, and every four years thereafter, the municipal primary and
general elections to the office of Council District 9 shall be held.
Commencing with the year 1984 the elections to the offices of Mayor and City Attorney shall be held
every four (4) years. The municipal primary election for the offices of Mayor and City Attorney shall be
held on the same date in each election year as the California State primary election, and the general
municipal election for these offices shall be held on the same date as the California State general election
for that year. All other municipal elections which may be held under this Charter shall be known as
special municipal elections.
All elective officers of the City shall be nominated at the municipal primary election.using a
ranked-choice ballot method. The two five candidates receiving the highest number of votes for a
particular elective office at the primary shall be the candidates, and only candidates, for such office and
the names of only those two five candidates shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at the general
municipal election. In the event only one candidate has qualified for the ballot in the municipal primary
election for a particular elective office, the sole qualified candidate receiving votes in the municipal
primary election shall be deemed to be, and declared by the Council to be, elected to such office after the
primary election results are certified.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall permit write-in
candidates for all municipal elections, including general elections.
If five or fewer candidates qualify to be placed on the municipal primary election ballot for a particular
elective office, the City shall forgo the primary election for that particular office and the qualified
candidates shall be automatically nominated and printed upon the ballots to be used at the general
municipal election for that office.
At each general municipal election held for the purpose of electing Council members and School Board,
the electors of each Council and School Board district shall use a ranked-choice ballot method to select
from among the candidates nominated chosen at the primary election in that district one candidate for the
office of the Council member whose term expires the succeeding December. At the general municipal
2
election held for the purpose of electing any other elective officer, there shall be chosen by all of the
electors of the whole City from among the candidates chosen at the primary one candidate to succeed any
other elective officer whose term expires in December succeeding the election.At each general municipal
election held for the purpose of electing any elective City-wide officer, the electors of the whole City shall
use a ranked-choice ballot method to select from among the candidates nominated at the primary election
for the particular City-wide office one candidate to succeed the elective officer who holds that office and
whose term expires the succeeding December.
Special municipal elections shall not include a primary. At each special municipal election held for the
purpose of electing a Council member, the electors of each Council district shall use a ranked-choice
ballot method to select from among the candidates nominated to fill the vacancy of a Council office. At
each special municipal election held for the purpose of electing any elective City-wide officer, the electors
of the whole City shall use a ranked-choice ballot method to select from among the candidates nominated
to fill the vacancy of the particular City-wide office.
After the result of an election for any office is declared, or when an appointment is made, the City Clerk,
under his or her hand and official seal, shall issue a certificate therefor, and shall deliver the same
immediately to the person elected or appointed, and such person must within ten days after receiving such
certificate file his official bond, if one be required for his office, and take and subscribe to the oath of
office required of him by this Charter, which oath must be filed with the City Clerk.
As used in this Section 10, “ranked-choice ballot method” means the ballot method established pursuant
to Section 10.5.
3
Section 10.5: Ranked-Choice Ballot Method
A. The City Council must implement by ordinance an “Instant-runoff voting” method of counting the
votes and breaking ties by January 1, 2024, in which:
1. For purposes of counting the votes for the winner in general and special elections:
i.The votes shall be counted in successive rounds using a series of runoff
tabulations to defeat candidates with the fewest votes. There shall be at least one
round of counting. If necessary, counting rounds shall continue until one
candidate has received more than 50% of first-choice votes on continuing ballots.
ii.At the end of the round of counting, if any candidate has received more than 50%
all first-choice votes cast, then that candidate shall be deemed elected and there
shall be no further counting rounds. However, if no candidate has received more
than 50% of first-choice votes cast, then the candidate receiving the fewest
first-choice votes shall be declared defeated and then a new round of counting
shall be conducted without the defeated candidate.
iii.In the new round, for each ballot that listed the defeated candidate as a first
choice, the highest ranked choice remaining on that ballot shall then be counted
as a first-choice vote and the runoff tabulations for the remaining candidates
shall be adjusted accordingly.
iv. Upon completion of the new round of counting, the procedures specified in
sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) above shall be followed until one candidate has
received more than 50% of the votes on continuing ballots and that person shall
be deemed elected.
2. For purposes of counting the votes for the nomination of candidates in the primary
election:
i.The voters may rank up to five candidates.
ii.The votes shall be counted in successive rounds using a series of runoff
tabulations to defeat candidates with the fewest votes. There shall be at least one
round of counting unless five or fewer candidates received votes, in which case
those candidates shall be deemed nominated. If necessary, counting rounds shall
continue until only five candidates remain.
iii.At the end of the round of counting, the candidate receiving the fewest
first-choice votes shall be declared defeated and then a new round of counting
shall be conducted without the defeated candidate.
iv.In the new round, for each ballot that listed the defeated candidate as a first
choice, the highest ranked choice remaining on that ballot shall then be counted
as a first-choice vote and the runoff tabulations for the remaining candidates
shall be adjusted accordingly.
4
v. Upon completion of the new round of counting, the procedures specified in
sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iv) above shall be followed until only five candidates
remain and those candidates shall be deemed nominated.
B.For each election, an electronic copy of each ballot cast in the election, stripped of all
information that could identify the voter who cast the ballot but showing the voter’s order of
preference for candidates, shall be deemed a public record and shall be posted on the City’s
Internet website not more than 30 days after the results of the election have been certified as
prescribed by law. The purpose of this provision includes, but is not limited to, enabling members
of the public to verify for each election that the counting of votes using the ranked-choice voting
method prescribed by this Section was performed correctly.
C.In the event the City Council adopts any implementation ordinance that does not comply with this
Section or fails to adopt an implementation ordinance by January 1, 2024, any registered voter in
the City shall have standing to seek judicial enforcement of the City Council’s obligation to adopt
an implementation ordinance in conformity with this Section.
Section 66: Board of Education
The government of the San Diego Unified School District shall be vested in a Board of Education,
composed of five members who shall be nominated and elected at the regular municipal primary elections
and the general municipal elections at the same time and with the same ranked-choice ballot method as
the election of Councilmembers. At the municipal primary election there shall be chosen by the registered
voters of each Board of Education District two five candidates for the office of any Board of Education
member from a District whose term expires the succeeding December. At the general municipal election
the registered voters of the whole San Diego Unified School District shall select from among the
candidates nominated chosen at the primary election in each district one candidate for the office of each
Board of Education member whose term expires the succeeding December using a ranked-choice ballot
method. Each candidate for the Board of Education shall have been a registered voter of the San Diego
Unified School District and an actual resident of the election district from which the candidate seeks to be
nominated for thirty (30) days immediately preceding filing of a nomination petition. The members shall
serve for a term of four years from and after 10 a.m. the first Monday after the first day of December next
succeeding this election and until their successors are elected and qualified, except as herein provided.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, and commencing in 2020, no person shall serve more
than three four-year terms as a member of the Board of Education. Board members who hold the office as
of the date of the Municipal General Election in 2020 shall not have prior or current terms counted for
purposes of applying this term limit provision.
Any vacancy occurring in the Board shall be filled from the election district in which the vacancy occurs
by appointment by the remaining Board members; but in the event that said remaining members fail to fill
such vacancy by appointment within thirty (30) days after the vacancy occurs, they must immediately
cause to be held a primary election in the district in which the vacancy occurs and a general special
election within the entire school district to fill such vacancy; provided, however, that any person
5
appointed to fill such vacancy shall hold office only until the next regular municipal election, at which
date a person shall be elected to serve for the remainder of such unexpired term.
For the purpose of electing members of the Board of Education, the San Diego Unified School District
shall be divided into five (5) districts as nearly equal in registered voter population as practicable. For the
first primary and regular election held under this section, as amended, the boundaries of such election
districts shall be established by the Board of Education as such Board existed on the effective date of the
amendment to this section. Thereafter, the boundaries of such election districts shall be subject to
alteration and change under the provisions of this section. The Board of Education, by resolution, may
change and alter the boundaries of the election districts and in the resolution may describe the new
boundaries by reference to a map on file in the office of the City Clerk; a metes and bounds description of
the new boundaries need not be contained in said resolution.
As used in this Section 66, “ranked-choice ballot method” means the ballot method established pursuant
to Section 10.5.
PART 2
If any section, sub-section, clause, or other portion of this Amendment is held invalid, the
remainder of this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect as if the Amendment had been
adopted without the invalid portion. To this end, the Amendment is declared to be severable.
[Statement of Reasons and Signatures Below]
6
STATEMENT OF REASONS
San Diegans for Ranked Choice Voting
A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in said amendment is as follows:
Purpose: is to modify the election process in the City to provide voters more choice, more voice, more
diverse ideas, and more civility in elections:
1. More voter participation. Studies show that ranked choice voting increases voter turnout.
2. More civility. Voters can reward candidates who engage in positive campaigning by ranking
them ahead of other candidates.
3. More voter choice. Voters can vote for the candidate they like the best without worrying that
they will help the candidate they like the least.
4. More diversity. More candidates from underrepresented populations will advance to the general
election.
5. Save taxpayer dollars.The City will save the cost of running “unnecessary” primary elections
when 5 or less candidates run for an office.
With ranked-choice voting, the top-five vote getters advance to the general election instead of just two. As
a voter you can still vote for only one candidate in the primary or November General election or you can
rank five candidates in order of preference (first choice, second choice, and so on). In the General
election, if any candidate receives the majority of votes they are declared the winner. If no candidate
receives a majority, the winning candidate is determined by a ranked choice voting counting methodology
to be statutorily implemented by the City Council in accordance with the principles and purpose
established herein.
Offices: All elective officers of the City, including School Board
Ranked Choice Voting is not new. It has been enacted or used for some elections in 25 states, 33 U.S.
municipalities, and statewide in Alaska and Maine.
Sincerely,
Aniya Brown
Policy Director, Community Advocates for a Just and Moral Governance (MOGO)
7
Ed Chaplin
Representative, MoreChoiceSD Team
Lori Thiel
Vice President, San Diego League of Women Voters
S. Chad Peace
Legal Advisor, Independent Voter Project
Amy Tobia
Local Representative of Represent.us
cc: San Diego City Councilmembers, Mayor, and City Attorney
8
Attachment 2
Jurisdictions Using Ranked Choice Voting
As of June 2022, Ranked Choice (RCV) is the voting method that either is currently used or has
been approved but not yet implemented in about 60 jurisdictions in the United States, including
two states (Alaska and Maine), one county (Benton County, OR), and about 57 cities (see below).
Note that this number increases as jurisdictions approve and implement RCV. There may be legal
questions in some cases, such as in Austin, TX and Memphis, TN. For more information on
jurisdictions implementing RCV, see FairVote.org.
1. Albany, California
2.Amherst, Massachusetts
3. Arden, Delaware
4. Austin, Texas
5. Basalt, Colorado
6. Benton County, Oregon
7. Berkeley, California
8. Bloomington, Minnesota
9. Bluffdale, Utah
10. Boulder, Colorado
11. Broomfield, Colorado
12. Burlington, Vermont
13. Cambridge, Massachusetts
14. Carbondale, Colorado
15. Cottonwood Heights, Utah
16. Draper, Utah
17. Easthampton, Massachusetts
18. Eastpointe, Michigan
19. Elk Ridge, Utah
20. Eureka, California
21.Ferndale, Massachusetts
22. Genola, Utah
23. Goshen, Utah
24. Heber, Utah
25.Las Cruces, New Mexico
26. Lehi, Utah
27. Magna Township, Utah
28. Memphis, Tennessee
29. Midvale, Utah
30.Millcreek, Utah
31. Minneapolis, Minnesota
32. Minnetonka, Minnesota
33. Moab, Utah
34. New York City
35.Newton, Utah
36. Nibley, Utah
37. Oakland, California
38. Palm Desert, California
39. Payson, Utah
40. Portland, Maine
41. River Heights, Utah
42. Riverton, Utah
43. Salt Lake City, Utah
44. San Francisco, California
45. San Leandro, California
46. Sandy, Utah
47.Santa Fe, New Mexico
48.Sarasota, FL
49. South Salt Lake, Utah
50. Springville, Utah
51. St. Louis Park, Minnesota
52. St. Paul, Minnesota
53. Takoma Park, Maryland
54. Telluride, Colorado
55. Vineyard, Utah
56. Westbrook, Maine
57. Woodland Hills, Utah