In Arizona, Representative Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) has introduced HB 2268, to require that vote-counting equipment be able to handle ranked-choice voting.
In Georgia, five Representatives have introduced HR 399, which would set up a legislative committee to study alternatives to old-fashioned runoff elections. The Resolution mentions instant runoff voting as something that would be studied.
In New York, State Senator Liz Krueger has introduced SB 2738, which would permit a pilot project for certain local governments to use instant runoff voting in 2019 and 2020, for elections for their own officers. Thanks to Douglas Goodman for the news about Arizona and New York, and to Amanda Swafford for the Georgia news.
Don’t forget Wyoming and Senate Bill 139 which includes this proposal: Section 4. 10
11 (a) On or before January 1, 2016, the secretary of 12 state’s office shall provide to the joint corporations, 13 elections and political subdivisions interim committee a 14 written plan for implementing ranked choice voting in (15) Wyoming. Ranked choice voting is a voting procedure where (16) voters are allowed to rank candidates for office in order (17) of preference and without regard to political party (18) affiliation. Each voter has exactly one (1) vote and the (19) rankings are used to determine to which candidate that one (20) (1) vote will be applied.
So do we add Wyoming to the list? SB 139 also says candidates can’t run for two offices, including those committee positions.
Forgot the Link to the bill SB 139: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Introduced/SF0139.pdf
David, thank you for letting us know about the Wyoming bill. I hadn’t known about it. But the Wyoming legislature’s web page shows that the bill is dead because it made no progress by February 9.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Enroll/SF0049.pdf
“AN ACT relating to initiatives and referendums; repealing prior initiative and referendum provisions; creating separate initiative and referendum provisions; revising initiative and referendum procedures and language; removing restrictions on circulator qualifications and pay as specified; and providing for an effective date.”
This was another change in Wyoming’s law but I can’t find out why it was different from current law. Wyoming also had a bill to criminalize the photographing of the ballot, but that didn’t pass the Feb 9th deadline. Also candidate committee’s can file on behalf of the candidate those campaign reports. I guess under the old law only candidates could file and not the candidates committee. This was HB 126.
What good does it accomplish, if Ranked Choice is adapted, if the requirements for a 3rd party or an Independent candidate getting on the ballot is just as though and discriminatory as it already is?
Let’s first get ballot position – the fairest way being the paying of Filing Fees – then we’ll debate as to whether Ranked Choice ballots will give 3rd party and Independent candidates better chances of winning any elections.
Personally, I don’t think it will make a bit of difference.
RCV and top 2 primary = more INSANE *reforms*.
Longer term – Condorcet HEAD to HEAD math — needing 100 percent safe voting systems.
In the meanwhile —
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The change to existing law is that SF-49 allows for out of state petitioners, and for payment of petitioners on a per signature basis. It unfortunately requires those petition sheets being circulated by paid petitioners to have a note saying the petitioner is being paid.
With regard to filing campaign finance reports, generally candidates were required to have two filing entities – the candidate and the candidates committee. You had to have a candidates committee if anybody other than the candidate solicited campaign donations. The new law allows for only one entity to file – either the candidate or the committee – both are no longer required.
Thanks Don for the information!
A system which place road blocks against people based on monetary reasons isn’t a fair one. The fair system is to place all people on the ballot until the numbers are too high.
I think a good number of names on a ballot would be in the 135-nominee range in a 100-member district.
But 135 names for a single-winner district would also be a good arbitrary number to pick in my mind.
So when you’re trying to pick arbitrary numbers, arbitrary costs, we should put these figures up for a vote, rather than just proclaim that some arbitrary figure you pick is fair.
When the voters agree on the rules, then that’s the best way to get confidence in the voting system. As you know, some vivacious litigants will simply sue over anything with complete disregard to others.