Electoral Reform Working Group

Fresno Plenary Minutes

Present: John-Marc Chandonia (San Francisco), Valerie D. Face, Ray Glock-Grueneich (Santa Cruz), Learner Goude (San Bernardino), Lupita Jimenez, Louis LaFortune (Santa Cruz), Kevin McKeown (Los Angeles), Bill Pietz (Los Angeles), "Star" Deborah Richardson, Dana St. George, Jeanne Rosenmeier (Contra Costa), Stephanie Schaaf, Larry Shoup, Matt Spencer (San Francisco), Cameron Spitzer, Jim Stauffer

This meeting to review and reorganize the Electoral Reform Working Group was held without a formal agenda. Participants were free to raise and discuss whatever issues they believed to be of most importance for the future work of the ERWG.

1. WORK PROCESS. To reengage ERWG participants in a process of group deliberation and co-ordinated work, we agreed to reactivate the ERWG email list. Bill Pietz will email everyone on the sign-in sheet asking them to confirm that they wish to be on this list and explaining how to subscribe to the list. GPCA web goddess Kendra Markle will teach Bill and Jeanne Rosenmeier how to manage the list. We also agree to update the ERWG web page. To make a start on this, Bill will send Kendra links to web sites with useful information on electoral reform, specifically the Center for Voting and Democracy, Californians for Proportional Representation, and the California Instant Runoff Voting Coalition.

2. SCOPE OF THE ERWG. Someone (sorry, I forget who) suggested that we support the Clean Money Campaign. Jeanne pointed out that the work of the ERWG is currently limited to the issues of IRV and PR. This surprised a number of people, especially because the stated purpose of the ERWG found on its web page mentions "public financing of elections" along with IRV and PR as "reforms that will open up the political system." Kevin McKeown remarked that such a restriction might promote the focus necessary for effective work. Bill asked if this restriction meant that the ERWG could not participate in the review of the Democracy and Electoral Reform plank in the GPCA platform that was proposed for the December plenary by the Platform Working Group. The group decided to request clarification from the Co-ordinating Committee regarding the permitted scope of ERWG activity. Jeanne agreed to make this request to the CC.

3. STATE ELECTION CODE. The group reaffirmed that its top priority is adding a Green Party section to the state election code that will include the provisions approved in the GPCA General Assembly resolution at the September 2001 plenary. Jeanne distributed copies of Caleb Kleppner's summary of these provisions. There was also consensus that we should be clear about the legislative process that will be required to pass the needed measure. Bill will do the research on this. We also need to find a state legislator willing to carry our bill. It was agreed to look first for an official currently on the Assembly or Senate committee that our bill will have to go through. However, ERWG members should also put forward the names of any state legislators that they believe might champion our bill. There was also a brief discussion of the importance of establishing ongoing relationships with elected officials, their staff, and elections officials. Should we begin a more organized lobbying effort, there appeared to be interest in learning more about how to go about this sort of work.

4. SECRETARY OF STATE. The group also discussed the importance of having a Secretary of State who is supportive of our elections code bill and our IRV efforts. Matt Spencer pointed out that while the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, Kevin Shelly, supported Prop A (the successful IRV referendum in San Francisco), it is not at all certain that he supports IRV in general or will help us pass the state legislation we want - AB1515 (a bill to use IRV in special elections for state and federal offices) and a bill to give general law cities the power to opt for IRV. Larry Shoup, our candidate for Secretary of State, suggested that the best way to push Shelly into the pro-IRV camp is for him to raise the issue as strongly as possible during the campaign. This appeared to make good sense to the group: the more we can help Larry run a strong campaign that promotes our electoral reform issues, the better our chance to achieve our goals.

5. VOTING EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION. The ERWG also discussed the linkage of voting equipment modernization to IRV and PR. Here too it is vital that we have a supportive Secetary of State, since it is the Secretary of State who determines what voting equipment it is legal for counties and municipalities to use. It is vital that all new equipment approved by the Secretary of State be IRV and PR compatible. This led to a discussion of electronic voting equipment. Several people discussed the advantages of touch screen voting equipment. However, Ray Glock-Grueneich raised the concern that companies manufacturing this equipment continue to take the position that their program codes are proprietary and must be keep secret. This may permit serious fraud and vote rigging if there is collusion between the manufacturing company and elections officials. Cameron Spitzer agreed with this view. Bill Pietz pointed out that this is a very serious and complicated question that remains unresolved among those who are most knowledgeable about the matter.

6. CHOICE VOTING. The difference between the two forms of preference voting - IRV for single-winner elections and choice voting for multi-winner elections - was discussed. We decided to ask for a time slot at the August Green gathering to hold a mock election using choice voting.