May 15, 2003
Sacramento

The League of Women Voters of California recommends that in the implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), new voting equipment that is purchased by the counties should include a requirement that it be compatible with ranked ballots, the ballots required for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

This election system allows voters to rank candidates in order of choice, rather than selecting just one. San Francisco last year adopted instant runoff voting to replace traditional runoff elections, a decision which will save the city millions of dollars each year.

It appears that interest in instant runoff voting is growing. In addition to San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro and the County of Santa Clara have amended their charters to allow for the use of IRV. Los Angeles has appointed a study committee.

The LWVC has adopted a position supporting election systems that require majority winners for executive office at the state and local level. Since IRV is an election system that could be used to achieve this, we recommend requiring equipment compatibility with ranked ballots now, as we believe the best time to require standards is before a competitive bidding process rather than after new voting equipment is purchased. We recommend the following language:

"All new voting systems purchased or leased shall be able to implement ranked order voting in the first election in which the equipment is used."

We believe this language would ensure that the vendor would not demand additional time and money to modify software or hardware if a jurisdiction sought to use a ranked choice system in the future. We also do not think it would add anything to the costs of new voting equipment and software. Among the reasons are:

• First, all major vendors report that they are ready to implement instant runoff voting, if asked. Most have already bid for contracts in which it was required, such as in the Republic of Ireland and Santa Clara County in California.
• Second, the key requirement for rank-order voting compatibility is to store ballot images (that is, to store each voter's individual rankings, rather than aggregate totals). Touch screen equipment (DREs) and most central optical scanners already store ballot images. Any needed software modifications to output a file of rankings would be minor.
• Third, when competing for a contract, a vendor has every incentive to avoid passing onto one jurisdiction the costs for a feature that it can use elsewhere. With more and more jurisdictions exploring ranked-choice systems, a vendor knows that having its equipment and software ready to implement these systems could help it compete for other contracts. An example of this free-market principle is provided by the February 2003 debate in Santa Clara County, where the county decided late in the process to require the capability of a voter-verified paper trail in its touch screen system. All three finalist vendors quickly stated that they could add the paper receipt at no additional cost to the county.

But if a jurisdiction waits to add provisions until after already investing heavily in new hardware, it becomes a captive customer, totally dependent on its vendor for any upgrades of software. In such a case, we believe vendors will charge the jurisdiction for all costs associated with adapting their equipment.

Requiring ranked ballot compatibility is an opportunity to be fiscally wise and save taxpayers money as we move toward more modern voting equipment and some jurisdictions choose alternative election methods for achieving majority winners.