Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voting Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors forward charter amendment to replace ranked-choice voting with runoffs after heated public comment
Summary
Supervisor Farrell introduced a charter amendment to replace ranked-choice voting (RCV) for citywide offices with a September primary and November runoff; the Rules Committee forwarded the item to the full Board without recommendation after extensive public comment and debate over turnout, costs and ballot confusion.
Supervisor Mark Farrell introduced a charter amendment at the Rules Committee special meeting on June 14 to replace ranked-choice voting for citywide offices with a September primary and a November runoff, while retaining ranked-choice voting for supervisor races. Farrell said the change is aimed at ensuring winners can mount a clear leadership case to voters and to address "voter confusion" and overvote rates he associated with RCV.
The amendment would affect the mayoral race and other citywide offices, including district attorney, sheriff, city attorney, treasurer and public defender. Farrell told the committee he believes RCV "has not really lived up to its promises," arguing it did not reliably curb negative campaigning or guarantee higher turnout and that it "has the ability to produce unintended results." He proposed a mechanism by which a September outright win could be declared if a candidate received more than a 65% threshold, a figure he said he was open to discussing.
Supervisor David Campos and Chair Supervisor Kim pushed back. Campos said he "respectfully disagree[d]" with the proposal and argued the available data do not support claims that RCV harms turnout or representation; he suggested the record shows RCV has "many benefits" and that problems are best addressed through improved voter education and implementation. Kim said she supports the current system for many races but indicated openness to debating a mayor-specific change, noting that mayoral turnout patterns differ from other citywide contests.
Public comment ran more than an hour and produced sharply divided views. Supporters of runoffs and opponents of RCV argued an extra election is the clearest path to a majority-backed winner and said a September primary could give voters a decisive November runoff. Critics warned of costs and administrative burdens: a teacher who spoke, Jim Lindsey, cited cost estimates ranging from $3.3 million to $4.2 million and said his midpoint estimate was about $3,750,000 for an additional election. Longtime poll worker Richard Wenger warned that extra elections would exhaust an experienced corps of primarily older poll workers and strain city election staff.
Ranked-choice advocates and election-reform experts urged preserving and improving RCV. Eric Brooks of the San Francisco Green Party said RCV empowered small-party voters in the last mayoral contest. Chris Trudonik, a polling-place inspector, cited recent California top-two primaries and warned of high rates of exhausted ballots and vote-splitting, saying examples exist where top-two candidates advanced with small pluralities. Steve Chesson, president of Californians for Electoral Reform, said a shorter interval between a September primary and a November runoff could run afoul of the spirit of the federal MOVE Act for military and overseas voters and undo prior local consolidation that saved city costs.
Stephen Hill, called to speak by the chair, directly challenged some of Farrell's figures and sources, saying a San Francisco State University poll found 87% of local voters understood ranked-choice voting and disputing an overvote figure Farrell had cited; Hill said the mayoral election overvote rate was "point 41%" and presented comparative charts to the committee.
After remarks and questions about election administration, resource constraints and turnout effects on minority neighborhoods, Supervisor Farrell moved to forward the charter amendment to the full Board of Supervisors "without recommendation." The chair said the motion could be forwarded "without opposition," and the committee recorded the motion and prepared to move into closed session for other agenda items.
The Rules Committee's action does not adopt the amendment; it sends the proposal to the full Board for further debate and a potential vote. The full Board is expected to consider the measure at its upcoming meeting; the committee also heard a separate closed-session report about pending litigation and a housekeeping ordinance amendment to add CEQA findings, which the committee moved forward with recommendation.
