Caleb Kleppner
February 7, 2000
Comments and questions requested:
calebk@fairvote.org, gpca-erwg@greens.org, 415-389-9739
Several counties tried to use proportional representation to elect county councils. Several obstacles prevented us from succeeding this year. Having identified these obstacles and ways to overcome them, we are well positioned to succeed in 2002.
Finding a state legislator who could carry a bill to create a Green Party section of the state elections code would be very helpful for this effort (and other party goals). Although case law supports the party’s right to select its election system, it may be necessary to pursue litigation if we are not able to pass a state law that codifies this right.
Until now, this effort has only required a modest investment of resources, chiefly meeting time of a few organizers, and should be continued at this level. We should also search statewide for a legislator to introduce an elections code bill for us, and we may want to consider litigation if our other efforts fail.
Our submission of the ballot argument opposing Proposition 23 has succeeded magnificently.
In the next year, we should continue working on using proportional representation for county councils and educating Green Party members by using proportional representation in elections at state meetings. We should also encourage locals to cooperate regionally on passing local campaigns for electoral reform.
At the August plenary in Santa Barbara, GPCA adopted a state bylaw that allows counties to use proportional representation to elect their county councils.
This bylaw was part of a strategy with four goals:
The idea was that by implementing proportional representation in the only internal elections that the Green Party controls, we would educate election officials about the system, pressure the election officials to acquire voting equipment that is compatible with ranked ballots, educate our own members about proportional representation, and demonstrate to the public at large that the system is viable and that voters have no trouble with the new system.
We identified activists in several counties interested in pursuing this issue. Counties included, among others, San Mateo, Fresno, Marin, Contra Costa and Nevada. In all of these counties, and perhaps others, activists met with local elections officials, explained what we wished to do and attempted to work together to solve the problem.
When Michael Twombly worked for Audie Bock, he agreed to introduce a bill to create a Green Party section of the elections code and to facilitate meeting with the Secretary of State’s office. With Audie’s subsequent meltdown, these efforts took several steps backward.
I spoke to the Secretary of State’s office, and their initial reaction was very supportive of this legislation.
I then spent 3 months begging Audie Bock at least to listen to my explanation of what we would like to do and why it’s important. Her staff didn’t do me the courtesy of telling me Audie had no interest, but when Audie submitted her bills for the session, this wasn’t among them. The closest to a response from her was an aide who relayed that Audie didn’t understand why this was important.
The county registrars seem to be reading from the same playbook. They all told us that we couldn’t use proportional representation to elect our county councils. The San Mateo county registrar’s response was emblematic, “I’ve checked with the county attorney, and there are no provisions for this.” This unfortunately ignores the Green Party’s successful lawsuit (Fong v. Green Party) that established the supremacy of our state bylaws over internal elections.
This is a setback, but it’s not a defeat. We can continue to meet with our election officials and make our case: the court case gives us the right to do this, and we’d like to work with you to make this manageable for you.
A new state law prevented our county council elections from appearing on the March ballot unless we had a contested election. San Mateo was the only county I heard of that had a contested election and was interested in using proportional representation for it. The county registrar flatly refused our repeated requests and our flexibility about the actual administration of the election.
Finally, because the Green Party does not have a section of the state elections code, we were subject to the new state law and registrars could claim that there are no provisions for using proportional representation for our county council elections.
1) We must recruit enough serious candidates for county council to have contested elections in many counties. We should be doing this anyway, of course.
2) We must create and maintain good relations with local election officials. We must be firm in our demands but respectful in our presentation of them and understanding of their workloads and limitations. We are trying to get election officials to do something they don’t want to do, so we hurt our chances if we get into a spitting match with them. At the same time, if we are not firm in our demands and insist on our legal rights, the election officials won’t give them to us.
3) We must work constructively with our elections officials and in particular find creative solutions that address the actual concerns of election officials. This can include things like offering to count the ballots by hand, bringing in a non-partisan group to count the ballots, agreeing to wait 30 days for results and the like. That the election takes place is much less important than how the election takes place, so we need to use good faith and an open mind in coming up with a solution that our election officials are willing to implement.
4) We must attempt to pass a Green Party section of the state elections code.
5) We must maintain good relations with the elections division of the Secretary of State’s office. This will include significant consultation with them about the elections code bill In administering our elections, that office runs into several questions that state law does not address. By passing this legislation, we would make their job easier, so might be able to make them into proponents of our legislation.
6) We must be prepared to consider litigation.The first step would be researching the issue and estimating our likelihood of success. Since case law supports our case, the threat of litigation could further our effort.
We submitted a ballot argument opposing Proposition 23, the non-binding “None of the Above” ballot option. To our delight, the Secretary of State selected our submission as the official argument against Prop. 23. It is appearing in voter guides mailed to 15 million Californians.
The goal of this effort was to “earn” some media with which to publicize our views about electoral reform – PR, IRV and public financing. It has worked beautifully. Several newspapers have editorialized against NOTA and in favor of PR and IRV, and we’ve generated multiple radio interviews and other speaking engagements.
As an added bonus, many newspapers and publicly regarded organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters have endorsed our position on Proposition 23. Even though they don’t necessarily endorse our reforms, the association of their position with our argument lends credibility both to the Green Party and to the reforms we support.
If you consider the value of sending 700 words and our contact information to 15 million voters, numerous editorials and speaking engagements, such as an hour-long discussion of Proposition 23 on KQED’s forum, it is certainly worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if not $1 million or more. And of course, having the Chamber of Commerce take our position lends us credibility that we couldn’t buy (and might not even want).
We should do the following things in over the next two years: