Extra

Four years after Berkeley residents voted overwhelmingly for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), the City Council will vote tomorrow (Tuesday) on whether to implement the new voting process for the mayoral and council district elections in November. 

Even if the council votes to implement IRV—a system that allows voters to rank candidate choices and eliminates runoffs—the process may be put off due to a delay in federal and state government software certification. 

Also on the Tuesday agenda, the council will consider a resolution opposing the use of chemical agents to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth, tax measures on the November ballot and remanding the question of arts space use at the Gaia Building to the zoning board. 

Before the regular meeting, the council will hold a workshop on the city budget, the second year of the 2007-2009 budget.  

Implementing instant runoff voting 

Green Party activist Jesse Townley, a Berkeley resident, has been involved for years in the push for IRV. 

“I’m glad they’re finally putting it in,” Townley told the Planet on Monday. “It’s shameful that they have been flouting the will of the voters.” 

Seventy-two percent of those voting in a 2004 Berkeley election were in favor of the Charter Amendment for IRV. Alameda County now has the technology to implement the voting system. 

Even if the council votes Tuesday to implement the voters’ will, however, voting in November by IRV could hinge on federal certification, according to the city clerk. The city had expected certification by the federal Election Assistance Commission—with state certification to follow—would have been in place by March or April. That has not happened. 

Asked for the reason for the delay, Guy Ashley, spokesperson for Alameda County Registrar of Voters said he didn’t know, but that County Registrar Dave MacDonald was meeting with Sequoia Voting Systems personnel on Friday to find out. “We’re sort of out of the loop,” he said, explaining that now the question is between Sequoia and the federal government. 

Bryan Whitener of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission e-mailed the Planet Monday, explaining the delay: Sequoia Voting Systems chose iBeta Quality Assurance laboratory to test the system and submitted its application to iBeta Aug. 9, 2007. "To date, EAC has not received a test plan from iBeta," he wrote. "Once we receive and approve a test plan from iBeta, our first priority will be to conduct a thorough review." 

Some of the factors outside the EAC's control are the workload of the testing system labs, how ready and mature the manufacturer's product is, how complete the manufactures documentation is, and how quickly the manufacturer responds to and corrects anomalies found in testing, Whitener wrote. 

"The date for completion will depend on iBeta and the manufacturer giving us all of the information we need to evaluate and approve the test plan."  

The clerk's report says that in order for the city to implement IRV in November, it would be necessary for both the federal government, and the state government, to have the system certified by July 14, the filing date for the local November election.  

Councilmember Kriss Worthington told the Planet Monday, however, that he will ask the council to be more flexible, allowing more time for certification, if necessary. 

IRV implementation has been predicated on overcoming technical hurdles and the ability of the city and county to continue consolidated elections. The charter amendment also requires that IRV not increase the city’s election costs. 

The council will be asked Tuesday to certify the fact that the three requirements have been satisfied. 

The clerk’s report says the county has certified Sequoia Voting Systems software and has the equipment on which to use it.  

The report also says the county is able to hold consolidated elections with Berkeley using IRV. 

The clerk’s report further states that using IRV will not increase Berkeley’s election costs, due to savings from the elimination of the need to hold runoff elections: 

“Including the fixed one-time costs, the IRV-specific costs over the first three elections ranges from $145,000 to $234,000, which still compares favorably with a total budgeted runoff allocation of $780,000 over the same three elections,” the report says. 

For recent Planet stories on IRV, see: 

www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-01-22/article/28985 

www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-01-30/article/26209 

Ballot measures 

Deciding which measures to place before the voters in November will be before the council again tomorrow.  

Some tax measures come back to voters for renewal to voters every four years. The council will vote on whether to place these measures before the voters, including taxes for libraries, parks, emergency medical services and emergency services for disabled persons. 

They will also address looking at a fire and preparedness tax ($90 per year to the average homeowner with a home assessed at $330,500), a library seismic safety bond ($33 per year cost to the average homeowner), and a bond for a therapeutic warm water pool ($28 per year to the average homeowner.) 

Among the other issues before the council are: 

• A request, authored by Councilmember Betty Olds to UC Regents to extend the environmental impact report review for 30 days on the Helios and Computational Research and Theory Buildings proposed for the upper Strawberry Creek watershed on the Berkeley campus. 

“Citizens are becoming more aware of these proposed projects and are increasingly alarmed about the scale of the proposed development and its impacts on Strawberry Canyon,” says the report submitted to the council by Olds. 

• A resolution proposed by Councilmember Linda Maio, opposing the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s attempts to “eradicate” the light brown apple moth by chemical means. “It has not yet been demonstrated chemical methods such as those proposed will eradicate the apple moth,” the resolution says. 

The council previously voted to oppose the CDFA’s intention to spray the Bay Area for the LBAM and to explore legal action to stop the spray.  

• A resolution referring back to the zoning board the question of defining the uses for arts space at the Gaia Building. The building developer was allowed to build higher than zoning would normally permit, after promising to use a certain amount of space for arts activities. The question of how much time and space should be devoted to this was resolved by the council, but challenged in court by attorney Anna De Leon, whose jazz club is in the Gaia Building. De Leon won the case in Superior Court.  

The resolution before the council tomorrow is a result of the court case in which the court decided that the City Council “abused your discretion by having passed [a resolution and] violated the statutory procedure of the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance....” 

(12) Use of instant runoff voting in lieu of runoff elections. 

For purposes of this charter “instant runoff voting” shall refer to a voting system which, in a single election, determines the candidate supported by the voters. Notwithstanding any section of this Charter to the contrary, upon a determination by the City Council of all of the following, that: a) the voting equipment and procedures are technically ready to handle instant runoff voting in municipal elections; b) instant runoff voting will not preclude the City from consolidating its municipal elections with the County; and c) instant runoff elections will not result in additional City election costs, the Council may by ordinance establish a system of instant runoff voting for the offices of Mayor, City Council, and Auditor in any manner permitted by the State of California Elections Code. Once the Council institutes a system of instant runoff voting, future elections shall be conducted as instant runoff voting elections, unless the Council finds that circumstances have changed such that one or more of the prior Council findings required by this section are no longer valid. In such case, the Council shall articulate the specific basis therefore in order to suspend an existing system of instant runoff voting. The fourteenth paragraph of Section 9 of Article V relating to the percentage threshold to trigger a runoff election shall have no application to a system of instant runoff voting. The City Clerk shall conduct voter and community education to familiarize voters with instant runoff voting.