Features

Three measures touted as electoral reforms will greet Berkeley voters when they confront their electronic voting machine touchscreens next Tuesday: two propositions designed to transform the way they vote and a third that would change the way candidates make it on the ballot. 

Under current city law, a runoff election is required within 28 days of the regular November city election if no candidate for mayor, city council or city auditor receives 45 percent of the votes (the current threshold for victory). Measure H reduces the threshold for mandating a runoff to 40 percent and delays the runoff election until the following February. 

Measure J imposes a $150 filing fee on candidates for all city offices, a fee which would be offset at the rate of one dol lar for every eligible signature collected, up to the total amount of the filing fee. Candidates would still have to pay $35 toward printing costs for their statements. Also under the changes proposed in Measure J, candidates for city council could only b e nominated by signatures of eligible voters within their council district. 

Both Measures H and J were put on the ballot by Berkeley City Council with no city councilmembers dissenting. 

The most controversial local issue on Tuesday’s ballot is Measure I, which would give the city instant runoff voting (IRV), otherwise known as rank-ordered voting—a method of voting that eliminates the need for separate runoff elections. 

The system is used in nationwide legislative races in Australia and in the London m ayoral elections and was adopted by San Francisco voters two years ago for implementation in this November’s city election.  

IRV would end runoffs by having voters rank candidates by order of preference. Measure I leaves the ultimate decision on impleme nting IRV to the city council if members decide implementation is practical given existing technology and procedures and doesn’t create additional costs–and if it doesn’t conflict with consolidation of a city election with a county election. 

The proposal prompted heated city council debates, notably between opponent Gordon Wozniak and supporter Dona Spring. Wozniak offered a sample chart showing how the same vote could end in three different outcomes, depending on the particular form of IRV employed.  

T hough proponents hail IRV as a means of bolstering democracy and saving costs on runoffs, opponents predict passage would discourage voters, increase electoral complexity, and lead to greater costs.  

City council has split over Measure I. Councilmember Miriam Hawley signed the argument for I, while H support and Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek signed the argument against. H supporter and Peralta Community College Trustee Darryl Moore supports I, while Wozniak, an H supporter, has been one of Measure I’s most vocal foes. 

Other I supporters include Berkeley school board president John Selawsky, the League of Women Voters, Helen Burke of the Sierra Club and Assemblymember Loni Hancock. Signatories against I include the presidents of the Elmwood Neighborhood and Panoramic Hill associations and Jesse Gabriel, last year’s UC Berkeley ASUC president. 

Proponents of Measure I, backed by national and state organizations, have raised over $16,000 to fund their campaign. The Center for Voting and Democracy of Takoma Pa rk, Maryland, has been the largest contributor to the IRV for Berkeley committee, giving $6,500 so far.  

Headed by John B. Anderson, a 1980 independent presidential candidate who won six million votes, the center has been a major force in pushing for IRV laws, taking a lead role in the March 5, 2002, election that brought IRV to San Francisco. 

Two affiliated organizations also chipped in for the Berkeley campaign: Californians for Electoral Reform, another major player in the San Francisco election, don ated $200 and Citizens for Proportional Representation donated $300. 

The largest individual donor, Rufus Browning, gave $1,000. A Berkeley resident, he is the director of the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University. 

Another major IRV supporter is the Green Party. 

IRV proponents have mounted an impressive website to bolster the campaign (www.irv4berkeley.org), listing endorsement from 20 organizations, 29 elected and appointed officials, and 98 individuals (including such diverse fol k as columnist and former gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington, author Michael Parenti and singer Jello Biafra). 

The one false note on the IRV website accompanies a plea for at least $20,000 in donations “[b]ecause of our well-funded opponents.” Bu t if anyone with deep pockets is giving cash to oppose Measure I, it’s news to Sherry Kelly, Berkeley city clerk, who has yet to receive a single legally required report of anyone putting up anything to fund an opposition campaign. 

H has been endorsed by all members of the city council, and no one filed an argument against the proposal, although some opposition has surfaced since the ballot arguments were finalized. The city attorney’s analysis said that any elections eliminated by the lower win percenta ges would save the city $100,000 on a council district runoff and $100,000 for a city-wide mayoral or auditor’s race. 

Proponents of Measure J—including Mayor Tom Bates, Zoning Adjustments Board chair Laurie Capitelli, Councilmember Gordon Wozniak, school board president John Selawsky, Assemblymember Hancock, librarian and union activist Jane Scantlebury, and former ASUC vice president for external affairs James Bryant—say the change will make elections more representative, attract more serious candidates and provide a modest contribution to offset city ballot printing costs. 

Measure J opponents—Councilmember Kriss Worthington, former Councilmember Diane Woolley, Peace and Justice commissioner Elliot Cohen, Transportation Commission chair Dean Metzger, activist Stephanie Manning, Council of Neighborhood Associations President Marie Bowman, Commission on Aging and Disability vice chair Charlie Betcher, former council candidate Budd Dickinson, and musician Hali Hammer—say the changes will discourage would-be candidates and give prospective officeholders less time to campaign.›