[EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC

Thu May 27 12:31:42 PDT 2021

Is it really all that noteworthy that the least disruptive voting reforms, in terms of the impact on legislatures and the post-VRA legal voting rights system, are the ones that elected Republicans and Democrats find most attractive? I don’t quite see this having as much to do with what voters want (frankly, they support far more substantive reforms) as with what voters are offered, and what deals are brokered. We should be cautiously optimistic about the fact that reform is on the political radar of more voters, but also just cautious.
ML

Professor Michael Latner
Political Science Department, California Polytechnic State University
Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
Faculty Scholar, Cal Poly Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy
@mlatner
https://www.mikelatner.com/

Gerrymandering the States: Partisanship, Race, and the Transformation of American Federalism Cambridge University Press, 2021 (with Alex J. Keena, Anthony J. McGann, and Charles A. Smith)
https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/gerrymandering-states-partisanship-race-and-transformation-american-federalism?format=PB

Gerrymandering in America, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular Sovereignty (Cambridge 2016) (with Anthony J. McGann, Charles A. Smith, and Alex J. Keena)
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=131650767X

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 12:00 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Law-election Digest, Vol 121, Issue 22
Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
        law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC (Jack Santucci)
   2. Re: Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC (Rob Richie)
   3. Re: Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC (Pildes, Rick)
   4. Re: Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC (Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie))

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 17:52:23 -0500
From: Jack Santucci <jack.santucci at gmail.com>
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC
Message-ID: <109B5005-2344-40E5-95A2-8AB2C700C233 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I appreciate the bipartisan enthusiasm for ranked ballots, but these RCV systems are fundamentally different from each other.

Maine and New York City are using majoritarian RCV within party primaries.

Alaska has decided to use majoritarian RCV for the second round of a nonpartisan two-round system (which itself did not exist before RCV introduction). So, one of RCV?s functions here has been to shepherd abolition of party primaries.

Meanwhile, the Utah cities will be using majoritarian RCV for single- as well as multi-seat elections.

More info here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351849825_Variants_of_Ranked-Choice_Voting_from_a_Strategic_Perspective

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 26, 2021, at 11:14 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Is the Voting Reform that Draws the Most Bipartisan Support Ranked-Choice Voting?
> Posted on May 25, 2021 2:03 pm by Richard Pildes
>
> The Virginia GOP used RCV in its nominating convention this year.
>
> 23 cites in Utah, including Salt Lake City, voted recently to adopt RCV.
>
> Alaskan voters in 2020 adopted RVC for federal and statewide races.
>
> Maine voters in 2018 adopted RCV for federal and state elections (in state elections, it is used only in primaries due to a court decision).
>
> That?s along with liberal cities that have used RCV for a while, including San Francisco, Minneapolis, Oakland, and Cambridge.
>
> To be sure, none of these changes have been adopted by state legislatures. But this list of places is fairly diverse.
>
>
> Posted in alternative voting systems
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210526/5c88e060/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 08:34:10 -0400
From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
To: Jack Santucci <jack.santucci at gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC
Message-ID:
        <CAM2RZHb8H97RgSEHCdvuKNxX_gw6H45fYHUnD+k=T9wagn9P=w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

In general, we at FairVote talk with an interesting mix of Republican and
Democratic state legislators and party leaders who find RCV's virtues
appealing, consistent with Rick Piildes' proposition. The common principle
that we find makes sense to many across the spectrum is that when you have
a choice among more than two candidates,  a single choice is limiting and
can lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Ranked choice voting provides a
backup that makes it more likely your vote will count without your backup
choice hurting the electoral chances of your first choice. In many ways,
it's just common sense

In Utah, RCV has advanced in a very bipartisan way within the legislature
and within cities. The 23 cities where the city council chose to use RCV
<https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used> represent
a mix of liberal areas and conservative areas. The alternative to use of
RCV for cities is holding a nonpartisan August primary that winnows the
candidate fields to twice the number of candidates as seats for the
November election (so 2 candidates advancing for mayor and 4 candidates
advancing for an at-large council race). In Utah cities, the case for RCV
isn't designed to change the basis for what share of votes it takes to win.
Rather, it is grounded in an argument that RCV in one election is faster,
cheaper and better
<https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/3/17/22327919/utah-county-clerk-auditor-ranked-choice-voting-rcv-faster-cheaper-elections>
- and Utah RCV advocates find tha message can resonate everywhere.

Virginia Republicans this spring voluntarily chose to use RCV for
nominating its statewide candidates
<https://www.fairvote.org/va_gop_results> -- choosing to run its own
contest because the state primary doesn't offer that RCV option, but only a
single-choice plurality system that can be problematic in a crowded field.
A lot of Virginia Democrats like the idea of RCV in primaries as well, and
I could see Virginina joining Utah in bipartisan consideration of adoption
of RCV.

- Rob Richie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210527/84af772b/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:25:20 +0000
From: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>, Jack Santucci
        <jack.santucci at gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC
Message-ID: <e89d54c3295b429a901bf662f55aa58c at nyu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Jack is right, of course, that the many recent adoptions of RCV employ it in varied contexts (though just as a correction, Maine uses it in federal races for the general election, as well as the primaries, and Maine voters voted to use it for statewide general elections as well, but a court decision blocked that latter use).

But from a broader perspective on the political culture concerning this issue, the fact that voters across the political spectrum, at the state and local level, and some state political parties, have chosen to switch to RCV is noteworthy.  This means millions of voters are going to be using RCV, in one form or another.  The experience those voters have will play into debates about whether to adopt RCV elsewhere.  It?s extremely difficult in American political culture to get voters to agree to changes in such a basic feature of elections as the voting system ? harder still to find significant levels of support across our political divides.  Yet in just the last two years, UT/ME/AL/NYC voters have adopted it for major elections.  That?s the big picture point I think is worth calling attention to.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square So.
NYC, NY 10014
347-886-6789

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Rob Richie
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 8:34 AM
To: Jack Santucci <jack.santucci at gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC

In general, we at FairVote talk with an interesting mix of Republican and Democratic state legislators and party leaders who find RCV's virtues appealing, consistent with Rick Piildes' proposition. The common principle that we find makes sense to many across the spectrum is that when you have a choice among more than two candidates,  a single choice is limiting and can lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Ranked choice voting provides a backup that makes it more likely your vote will count without your backup choice hurting the electoral chances of your first choice. In many ways, it's just common sense

In Utah, RCV has advanced in a very bipartisan way within the legislature and within cities. The 23 cities where the city council chose to use RCV<https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used> represent a mix of liberal areas and conservative areas. The alternative to use of RCV for cities is holding a nonpartisan August primary that winnows the candidate fields to twice the number of candidates as seats for the November election (so 2 candidates advancing for mayor and 4 candidates advancing for an at-large council race). In Utah cities, the case for RCV isn't designed to change the basis for what share of votes it takes to win. Rather, it is grounded in an argument that RCV in one election is faster, cheaper and better<https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/3/17/22327919/utah-county-clerk-auditor-ranked-choice-voting-rcv-faster-cheaper-elections> - and Utah RCV advocates find tha message can resonate everywhere.

Virginia Republicans this spring voluntarily chose to use RCV for nominating its statewide candidates<https://www.fairvote.org/va_gop_results> -- choosing to run its own contest because the state primary doesn't offer that RCV option, but only a single-choice plurality system that can be problematic in a crowded field. A lot of Virginia Democrats like the idea of RCV in primaries as well, and I could see Virginina joining Utah in bipartisan consideration of adoption of RCV.

- Rob Richie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210527/302e9c37/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:29:33 +0000
From: "Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)" <BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com>
To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>, Rob Richie
        <rr at fairvote.org>, "Jack Santucci" <jack.santucci at gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC
Message-ID: <20493b171d464fe7b7c7e4a4d146db1a at perkinscoie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

And don?t forget the Virginia Republican Party?s use of ranked choice voting in their recently concluded gubernatorial selection convention: https://virginia.gop/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-State-Convention-Voting-Instructions.pdf.

=B.
Brian G. Svoboda  |  Perkins Coie LLP
700 Thirteenth Street N.W.
Washington, DC  20005-3960
PHONE: 202.434.1654
FAX: 202.654.9150
E-MAIL: BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com
IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: This communication is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information.  If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents.  Thank you.

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Pildes, Rick
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 11:25 AM
To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>; Jack Santucci <jack.santucci at gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC

Jack is right, of course, that the many recent adoptions of RCV employ it in varied contexts (though just as a correction, Maine uses it in federal races for the general election, as well as the primaries, and Maine voters voted to use it for statewide general elections as well, but a court decision blocked that latter use).

But from a broader perspective on the political culture concerning this issue, the fact that voters across the political spectrum, at the state and local level, and some state political parties, have chosen to switch to RCV is noteworthy.  This means millions of voters are going to be using RCV, in one form or another.  The experience those voters have will play into debates about whether to adopt RCV elsewhere.  It?s extremely difficult in American political culture to get voters to agree to changes in such a basic feature of elections as the voting system ? harder still to find significant levels of support across our political divides.  Yet in just the last two years, UT/ME/AL/NYC voters have adopted it for major elections.  That?s the big picture point I think is worth calling attention to.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square So.
NYC, NY 10014
347-886-6789

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rob Richie
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 8:34 AM
To: Jack Santucci <jack.santucci at gmail.com<mailto:jack.santucci at gmail.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Utah != Alaska != Maine = NYC

In general, we at FairVote talk with an interesting mix of Republican and Democratic state legislators and party leaders who find RCV's virtues appealing, consistent with Rick Piildes' proposition. The common principle that we find makes sense to many across the spectrum is that when you have a choice among more than two candidates,  a single choice is limiting and can lead to unrepresentative outcomes. Ranked choice voting provides a backup that makes it more likely your vote will count without your backup choice hurting the electoral chances of your first choice. In many ways, it's just common sense

In Utah, RCV has advanced in a very bipartisan way within the legislature and within cities. The 23 cities where the city council chose to use RCV<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.fairvote.org_rcv-23where-5Fis-5Franked-5Fchoice-5Fvoting-5Fused&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=liAVgWK_6sjbUg6EC0f0khf6MyboEmFwaqEV2P3ukag&m=V6JvGLuuLQazO2-1pqvYoX9pnL9UpX2T-CzxJDfybBU&s=MVTdhOyJD9oXAbTTC-7m0NC2DiigADuy_tORLJz6emg&e=> represent a mix of liberal areas and conservative areas. The alternative to use of RCV for cities is holding a nonpartisan August primary that winnows the candidate fields to twice the number of candidates as seats for the November election (so 2 candidates advancing for mayor and 4 candidates advancing for an at-large council race). In Utah cities, the case for RCV isn't designed to change the basis for what share of votes it takes to win. Rather, it is grounded in an argument that RCV in one election is faster, cheaper and be
 tter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.deseret.com_opinion_2021_3_17_22327919_utah-2Dcounty-2Dclerk-2Dauditor-2Dranked-2Dchoice-2Dvoting-2Drcv-2Dfaster-2Dcheaper-2Delections&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=liAVgWK_6sjbUg6EC0f0khf6MyboEmFwaqEV2P3ukag&m=V6JvGLuuLQazO2-1pqvYoX9pnL9UpX2T-CzxJDfybBU&s=Kbp6cw47xIR2kagru8H98sjqsDsYs1fSx4Dt59yAlD4&e=> - and Utah RCV advocates find tha message can resonate everywhere.

Virginia Republicans this spring voluntarily chose to use RCV for nominating its statewide candidates<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.fairvote.org_va-5Fgop-5Fresults&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=liAVgWK_6sjbUg6EC0f0khf6MyboEmFwaqEV2P3ukag&m=V6JvGLuuLQazO2-1pqvYoX9pnL9UpX2T-CzxJDfybBU&s=5pIM8BQoHgKxuenkmBLogEg1W54oxQnpMDmpLjlV9Yc&e=> -- choosing to run its own contest because the state primary doesn't offer that RCV option, but only a single-choice plurality system that can be problematic in a crowded field. A lot of Virginia Democrats like the idea of RCV in primaries as well, and I could see Virginina joining Utah in bipartisan consideration of adoption of RCV.

- Rob Richie

________________________________

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210527/6a4e69f2/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

------------------------------

End of Law-election Digest, Vol 121, Issue 22
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210527/707fe3df/attachment.html>