Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Rank Choice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears public on ranked‑choice voting but declines to advance ballot measure at meeting
Summary
After extended public comment and a late submission of redlined language, the council did not adopt the resolutions to place a ranked‑choice voting ordinance on the November ballot. Supporters urged voter choice and modernization; opponents cited cost and voter complexity.
Irvine — The City Council debated whether to place a ranked‑choice voting (RCV) ordinance on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot but did not adopt the package of resolutions needed to advance the measure at the June 23 meeting.
City Clerk Carl Peterson reviewed procedural deadlines and said the last reliably available Regular Meeting to meet ballot‑preparation deadlines is July 14; the city must finalize ballot arguments and an impartial analysis by early July if it wants the November ballot. Staff presented three resolutions to (1) submit an RCV ordinance to voters, (2) set priorities for written ballot arguments, and (3) allow rebuttal arguments, plus a $15,000 budget allocation for basic ballot costs.
Members of the public and RCV advocates urged placing the question before voters. Advocates urged changing a fixed cost cap in the draft ordinance to a percentage‑based limit and adding language to allow preliminary RCV tallies to be released as ballots are processed — edits proponents said would make the ordinance more flexible and protect the city from unexpectedly high implementation costs.
Opponents warned of estimated implementation costs (staff and vendor estimates cited) and said the city faces a budget shortfall that should take priority over changing election technology. Several commenters and council members also objected to last‑minute redlined language that arrived the day of the meeting, arguing the council and public had insufficient time to review it.
Council member Tresita proposed a set of redline edits (preliminary results timing; county consolidation language; cost cap adjusted to 0.23% of general fund with a two‑thirds deferral threshold). The proposed motion lacked a second and therefore failed to proceed; no binding action was taken to place RCV on the November ballot. Councilmembers and staff noted the council retains the option to revisit the package at an upcoming meeting before the July 14 deadline.
Outcome and next steps: No council vote to submit RCV to the ballot occurred at this meeting; staff and councilmembers noted procedural deadlines if the council wants to act at a later meeting.
