Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Ranked Choice Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors to delay adopting ranked-choice voting, cite confusion and past county voting problems
Summary
Multiple members of the public addressed the Finance and Government Operations Committee to oppose implementing ranked‑choice voting in Santa Clara County, raising concerns about ballot adjudication rates, alleged past failures at the Registrar of Voters and the role of outside lobbyists.
Members of the public urged the Finance and Government Operations Committee on March 18 to pause consideration of adopting ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in Santa Clara County, saying the public lacks understanding of the system and raising concerns about ballot processing and past problems at the Registrar of Voters.
Speakers who opposed RCV included Jean Robert Hobbs; Josephine Kawanami reading for Georgine Scott Kodiga; Sue Bazzini; Chris Novak; Robert (last name not specified); Alice (last name not specified); Brian (Zoom); and Tian/Tian Feng (transcript spelling varies). Their remarks focused on perceived complexity of RCV, alleged high rates of ballot adjudication under the county’s current systems and the influence of outside advocates.
“Most people do not understand what ranked choice voting is,” Jean Robert Hobbs said, citing Measure F (1989) and saying the county’s electorate today differs from when the measure passed. A number of speakers noted a 2023 state law (identified in testimony as “AB 12 27”) that they said allows the board to adopt ranked‑choice voting by ordinance. Several urged that any change be voter‑approved rather than enacted administratively.
Josephine Kawanami, reading statements for Georgine Scott Kodiga, urged the committee to “review all documented evidence of the SCC ROV past negligence and failure to correct its issues before considering implementing any new programs, let alone one potentially harmful to the voters.” She asked the committee to review prior audits and grand jury investigations cited in her remarks.
Other speakers cited figures and studies. One commenter said that in the November 2024 election “over 765,000 ballots were cast” and asserted that “over 597,000 cards had to be adjudicated.” Another warned that RCV can “exhaust” ballots and produce “false majorities,” citing a national analysis referenced during remarks.
Several speakers urged the committee to require additional technical and risk assessments before advancing RCV. Tian/Tian Feng asked for a comprehensive simulation covering “276,000 combinations of setting” and requested raw data, algorithms and modeling assumptions be provided to the public prior to any adoption.
Committee members did not take action on RCV at the March 18 meeting. Public comment on RCV occurred during the hearing’s public‑comment period and was recorded but did not result in a committee vote.
The public commentators identified specific documents they said the committee should review, including a county civil grand jury investigation (cited in testimony as “02/2003–2004”) and state audits from 2010. The speakers framed most of their remarks as requests for additional study and for the board of supervisors to avoid adopting RCV without broader public approval.
