Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Voting Methods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunnyvale residents urge committee to drop ranked-choice and to respect voters'9 decision on Measure F
Summary
Dozens of residents told the Charter Review Committee on April 3 that the city should not revisit ranked-choice voting or revive parts of Measure F that voters rejected in November 2024. Speakers flagged cost, voter confusion and outside lobbying as reasons to drop those topics from the committee's priority list.
Dozens of residents urged the Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee on April 3 to drop study of ranked-choice voting and to respect the November 2024 vote that rejected Measure F provisions removing citizenship requirements for some advisory bodies.
The public hearing drew repeated objections to reconsidering ranked-choice voting and the Measure F items. Mei Ling Stephan, a Sunnyvale resident, told the committee, "I wonder if you would consider adding the Charter Review Committee to the Charter. I cannot find the CRC in the Charter," and also urged the group to focus on priorities rather than reworking recent ballot outcomes.
Why it matters: The comments focused on immediate costs and voter clarity. Several speakers said ranked-choice voting would be expensive to implement and confusing for voters; others said Measure F already lost decisively and should not be repackaged. Committee members said public input will guide whether topics remain on the study list.
Public concerns and examples: Bob (resident) cited county election costs and warned of high bills for running elections, stating, "the total for the 22 election was $62,107,912." Multiple speakers said the ranked-choice proposal is being advanced by outside groups and consultants rather than by local demand. Brian (resident) told the committee, "Ranked choice voting is a very risky technology." Cindy (resident) urged staff to obtain a Dominion ranked-choice configuration profile for technical study, saying, "I highly recommend request the profile so you can study."
Committee response: Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the CRC is gathering information, not making final decisions. City staff told the committee, "you're not taking final action on anything tonight at this meeting," and described the current role as preparing a prioritized list for a joint June meeting with the City Council.
What happened next: The committee left the ranked-choice and Measure F-related items on the study list for further research and asked subcommittees to gather material and public input before the next full meeting.
Outlook: Committee members asked subcommittees to gather data, potential alternatives and community feedback; several members suggested polling or targeted outreach to assess public support before recommending any ballot measures.
