AN ORDINANCE proposing to amend the King County Charter to utilize ranked-choice voting for the election of county officers, including the King County executive, the King County assessor, the King County director of elections, the King County councilmembers and the King County prosecuting attorney, effective January 1 following the council's adoption of an ordinance approving protocols for ranked-choice voting; amending Section 610 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at a special election to be held in conjunction with the November 2, 2021, general election.
Thank you. That takes us to high school around. I'm six on their agenda, which would place a proposition on the November ballot that, if approved, would amend the King County Charter to allow the use of ranked choice voting for county elected positions, including King County Executive, King County Assessor, King County Director of Elections, King County Council members , the King County Prosecuting Attorney Brenda Wilson and from the Council South will provide the briefing is less than I'm the one is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, members of the committee. For the record, Randall is in with council staff. I'll note that the materials for this item begin on page eight of your meeting packets for today. I'll start with some background information. So first, regarding the election of county officers. Section 610 of the county's charter. Currently directs that the nominating primaries and elections for the offices of the county executive assessor, counsel and Prosecuting Attorney shall be conducted in accordance with general laws governing the election of nonpartisan county officers under current practice. The winners of single member offices in jurisdictions throughout the state are determined using the plurality system in which voters select one candidate and the candidate who receives the most votes is declared the winner. And if there's a tie, then the winner is chosen by lot. So regarding ranked choice voting, ranked choice voting is a system of voting that allows voters to rank candidates for a single office in order of preference. So first choice, second choice, etc. The votes are tallied based on the first choice on every ballot. If a candidate receives over 50% of the first choice preferences, then that candidate will be declared the winner. If no candidate wins a first round majority of votes, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and another round of vote tallying would then commence. If a voter's first choice is eliminated, then their vote is transferred to their second choice preference. And then this process repeats. And the last place candidate is eliminated in each round until one candidate receives a majority and win the election. So when ranked choice voting is conducted to elect one candidate, the result is similar to traditional runoff elections. And in those situations the terms are ranked choice voting and instant runoff voting are used interchangeably. And there's a few illustrations provided in your staff report materials illustrations one through three, starting on page ten that provides some hypothetical scenario examples for this process at the request of members from last month's briefing. So in each of these scenarios, I'll just note that it would entail four candidates vying for one office. So you'll note in scenario one on page ten of your packet that of the four candidates, Candidate B in this situation receives the majority of the first choice preference preference votes in round one of vote tallying and would therefore win the election. In other words, no additional rounds of vote tallying would be necessary in scenario two. Also, on page ten, no candidate, none of the four candidates in the situation receives a majority of the first choice preference votes in round one of vote tallying . As such, the candidate with the fewest number of votes in round one, which in this illustration would be candidate D would be eliminated and candidate these votes are redistributed based on the voter's second choice preference. And as you'll note in the second bar, in the second round of vote tally, candidate B receives a majority of the votes and wins the election. And then in scenario three, on page 11 of your packet materials, in this situation, of the four candidates, no one receives a majority of the first 4/1 choice preference votes in round one of vote tallying. As such, again, the candidate with the fewest number of votes in round one is eliminated, which would happen to be candidate D and then the candidates votes are redistributed based on the voter's second choice preference. So in the second bar, no candidate receives a majority of votes in round two of vote tallying, and similarly, the candidate with the fewest number of votes in round two in the situation, candidate seat is eliminated and their votes are redistributed based on the voter's second choice preference. Or if that person, that candidate has been eliminated, then it would be their third choice preference and the third bar. You'll note that in this situation, Candidate B receives a majority of votes in round three of vote tallying and would therefore win the election. So again, those are just hypothetical illustrations, but kind of explains how that process would work. So regarding use of ranked choice voting in the United States, municipalities in several states have used ranked choice voting in the U.S. elections. One state, Maine, has used ranked choice voting in statewide and federal elections. Additionally, Alaska voters approved a ballot measure last year that will require the use of ranked choice voting in state and federal elections beginning next year. One example that's been in the news recently is the city of New York. The city beginning this year is using ranked choice voting for primary and special elections for the offices of the mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and the city council. And this is due to an amendment to the city's charter that was approved by voters in 2019. So a little closer to home in Washington State, the city of Vancouver voters in 1989. Approved an amendment to its city charter that allows the city council to authorize single election, instant runoff, voting for the election of city officers. Additionally, Pierce County voters approved an amendment back in 26 to its county charter on phrase ranked choice voting, which was subsequently implemented in the 2008 and 2009 general elections for county elected officers. I'll note, however, that this authorization was later repealed by King County voters in 2009. The question had come up during last month's briefing regarding proposed state legislation. So multiple bills relating to ranked choice voting have been introduced in recent years in the state legislature that would have expanded the use of ranked resulting in the state. Most recently, during the 2021 session, House Bill 1156 was introduced, which would have permitted ranked choice voting in elections for offices in counties, cities, towns, school districts, fire districts and court districts, and also would have established certain requirements for ranked choice, voting, ballot design and vote tabulation at a high level. The bill would have allowed implementing jurisdictions to either eliminate or hold a primary when using ranked choice voting to narrow the list of candidates to appear on the general election ballot. Ballot two five. Additionally, for offices in which there is more than one position with the same name, district number or title, the bill would have allowed implementing jurisdictions to choose whether the positions would be addressed as separate offices or as a multi-member office. If the former. A separate office says the bill directed that ranked choice voting would be conducted using instant runoff voting if the latter as a multi-member office. The bill directed that ranked choice voting would be conducted using the single transferable vote method just by way of status. Ultimately, the legislation did not advance out of the House of Origin during the 2021 session. So moving to the King County Charter Reviews, Charter Review Commission's recommendation regarding ranked choice voting and this was something that was mentioned during last month's briefing. In the 2018 2019 term, Hughes Commission's final report to this council ranked choice. Voting was an issue recommended for further study as described in the report. The Commission did invest significant time during its deliberations regarding a proposal to move the county to ranked choice voting for county elected offices. But ultimately, the commission could not reach a consensus on whether the move should be pursued or what model should be implemented. Specifically, the Commission recommended in its report that the Council study the issue by forming a task force to determine if it's in the best interest of the public. So moving on to a potential for impact of ranked choice voting on underrepresented populations or communities. So a study in 2016 analyzed the candidates running for office after implementation of ranked choice voting in four different cities in California. The study found that the voting structure increased descriptive representation for women of persons of color and women of color. And just for context, descriptive representation refers to the idea that a body of elected representatives should reflect the outward characteristics such as occupation. Race, ethnicity. Of the populations they represent. Just for context, the study analyzed races in 11 California cities for various citywide elected positions between 1995 and 2014, including the four cities that did implement ranked choice voting and an additional seven cities that did not implement the new structure but were similar in terms of population size and racial makeup and income. I won't go through the highlights of the study findings just for sake of time, but I will note that those are discussed in your staff report on page 13 of your packet materials. So moving to the topic of ballot exhaustion, so an expressed concern regarding ranked choice voting is the potential for ballot exhaustion. And this refers to when a ballot is no longer countable in a tally such as when there are still remaining candidates, but all the candidates that a voter ranked have already been eliminated. So just for illustrative purposes, in the case of the 2009 election of the Pierce County Auditor that was conducted using ranked choice voting and the algorithm results showed that about 3% of ballots were exhausted in the last round of vote tallying. Just to highlight the potential for full range for this issue, another example is the 2011 San Francisco mayoral election. I then also conducted using ranked choice voting, and the results showed that approximately 27% of ballots and due to ballot exhaustion did not rank the final two candidates who reached the last round of vote tallying. So again, just for illustrative purposes to highlight potential range. So now turning to the analysis section of the staff report and this starts on page 14 of your packets. As noted, the proposed ordinance would place on the November ballot a charter amendment proposal to utilize ranked choice voting for the election of county officers, including the county executive assessor, director of elections, county council members and the prosecuting attorney. If approved by voters and subject to Council's adoption of an ordinance approving protocols for ranked choice voting, the amendment would take effect on January 1st. After Council's adoption of the Ranked Choice Voting Protocols Ordinance, the ordinance directs that be that ranked choice. Voting again, if approved, would give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference and would be conducted in rounds in each round. Each voter's ballot would count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked the highest and the candidate with the fewest votes after each round would be eliminated and the eliminated candidates votes would be redistributed to the next ranked continuing candidate. The process would repeat until one one candidate receives a majority of votes for all remaining candidates. Per the ordinance, that candidate would be deemed elected at the time of election certification. Additionally, when ranked choice voting is conducted, there wouldn't be a primary for the impacted office or offices, and all qualified candidates would appear directly on the general election ballot. Lastly, in a scenario where there were no more than two candidates that have filed for a particular county office, the ordinance the ordinance permits that the election for that office could either be conducted by a ranked choice voting or according to general laws governing nonpartisan offices. So just regarding some implementation, timing and cost considerations, according to the county's Department of Election staff, approximately 3 to 5 years is the estimated time frame needed for the department to prepare for ranked choice voting implementation. Staff note that the time frame is primarily driven by the amount of time necessary to develop, certify and test updates to its ballot tabulation system capable of handling ranked choice voting, including extensive internal testing by the department. While a comprehensive cost estimate for implementing ranked choice voting isn't available, staff expect and again this is subject to change that the media costs associated with implementing or CEV ranked choice voting would entail the following. So updating the ballot tabulation system, voter education campaign, potential costs relating to multiple page ballots and then potential additional staffing needs. I won't run through the itemization of all of these items, but for sake of time. But we'll just note that they are discussed on page 15 of your packet materials. So turning to potential policy issues, a summary of some potential policy issues is provided in the staff report. I will run through them very quickly. The first relates to effective dates as currently drafted. The proposed charter amendment, if approved by voters, would take effect in January following council's adoption of an ordinance approving ranked choice voting protocols. It's important to note that the proposed ordinance is silent regarding when or whether the council would be required to adopt that ordinance. So hypothetically, as currently drafted, if voters were to approve the charter amendment but the Council didn't adopt an ordinance approving request voting protocols and the charter amendment wouldn't take effect. The effective date for the proposed amendment basically presents a policy choice regarding definitions. I'll just note that the proposed ordinance currently lacks a definition section which presents another policy choice for the Council as to whether to keep the language, as is to include a definition section in this proposed ordinance or to provide some sort of direction in this ordinance regarding specific terms to be defined in the protocols ordinance. Lastly, regarding the direction for the Protocols Ordinance, the proposed ordinance currently does not provide direction as to the process for determining whether ranked choice voting would be conducted in the event that only two or fewer candidates were to file for a county office. This presents another policy choice as to whether to provide this direction in this ordinance or wait to address this issue in the protocols ordinance. I'll just note also that it's important to note that a proposed ordinance just generally does not provide direction on specific issues to be addressed in the ranked choice voting protocols ordinance. Last. I'll just note some important next steps and a key information. So basically, in order to place this potential charter amendment on the November ballot and the last regular council meeting for adoption as a non-emergency, it would be the July 20th council meeting. Lastly, very last thing. There are amendments. Amendment one was included in your pocket materials. It's on page 22. And then additionally, Amendment two was emailed to members yesterday morning at 11:45 a.m.. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to brief those amendments or concluding remarks here. Let's conclude there, and I'll invite the prime sponsor to make remarks if he chooses, and then fill the questions on the presentation. Council Members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also, thank you, Miranda. I know you said lastly multiple times, but it's a complex the legislation and I know there's a lot to analyze there. But thank you so much for all the exceptional work colleagues. Our state continues to be at the forefront of voting innovation. At every step we've taken in that evolution has created a better system and allowed more people to have their voice heard. The next step of our voting evolution can address not only who's able to vote, but also how we vote. Right now, we have an either or electoral system where voters are limited to choosing just one candidate. And too often, people have to resort to voting for someone they're not that passionate of, passionate about. Winner takes all, voting is at the heart of many of our political problems. It creates negative partizanship and polarization, where the different candidates and their supporters attack each other in hopes of becoming the one candidate who's selected. And also, voters don't have their full voice or their full preference or enter ranked choice voting. This system has a lot of benefits. Number one, it captures more of a voter's preferences because they get to rank their candidates. It makes candidates campaign to everyone rather than just their base. It helps better capture the will of the electorate, since someone who appeals to broader coalitions is more likely to want to win than someone who just campaigns to their base. It incentivizes coalition building among like minded candidates and communities rather than toxic infighting, as Henry Mar from Public Comment mentioned. Imagine you're a campaign volunteer. You're knocking on doors for your candidate. A voter opens their door who's supporting someone else. Under our current system, that voter might end the conversation immediately because your candidate comes at the expense of their own. Under ranked choice voting, the conversation continues because your candidate doesn't come at the expense of theirs. This voter can continue supporting their favorite candidate and still hear you out for a second place vote. In this way. Ranked choice. Voting helps us listen to each other, helps us show empathy and helps us form coalitions. Additionally, ranked choice voting makes more candidates viable and thus a more competitive race, which leads to higher voter turnout. As Carol Sullivan, someone else from public comment pointed out, that in our current system, if your candidate doesn't make it through the primary, that might have a depressing effect on the general, where people are less excited to turn out to vote for someone that isn't the most exciting candidate for them personally. Imagine if everyone in November comes out and gets to vote for their candidate, the one that they're most passionate about, and they also get to vote for their second and third choice candidates. That could increase voter turnout. It would increase the excitement about about our democracy. It would make people feel like their voice and their vote really matters. Finally, my last point, just to remind my colleagues that we wouldn't be making this choice unilaterally. We would be putting this on the ballot. We would be asking our constituents if they want to head in this direction. And so even by voting for this ordinance, we would be giving voters more choice. So thank you so much. Happy to have this conversation and continue the dialog. Questions of masking to. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you very much. I thank you very much for the remarks. And Miranda excellent staff report, as always. You know, it's really the first time I'm looking at this with my legislative cap on watching some of the stuff that's happening in New York and trying to understand what the effects on the ground would be. I see good things and bad things. The question I have here is, you know, there are still no matter whether you agree or disagree with them, there are still political parties that exist out there. And I'm kind of I'm a little worried about the idea of eliminating a primary that windows down the field. And here is why, in a scenario where, for example, let's say one political party, super well organized, decides to run just one candidate from that political party for an office, and the other party has five candidates running. And maybe that one political candidate from the one the strong party ends up getting 47% of first place votes, but a whole lot of second place. What does the filing that occurs and the lack of a winnowing primary create a situation where the political parties can control largely the outcome by filing their one preferred candidate. Any thoughts on how that might work? Within the language of the ordinance would be appreciate. Well, as you said myself, thank you, Councilmember Dunn. So I will note that in the States RC ws that primaries are required for partizan elections, but in the counties charter, the county offices are described as nonpartisan positions, and currently the elections are conducted in accordance with the process for nonpartisan elections in general law. So I don't think that the proposed ordinance would kind of. Be impacted by the scenario that you just explained it, if that makes sense. Well, yeah, I appreciate the response. I just as a as a reality. Yes. They're nonpartisan races, of course. But as a practical matter, I think everyone on the dais knows that parties play heavily in those races. And so I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about whether there can be gaming of the system, and I'm happy to discuss it more fully. And then the second question, last question and I'll stop is again the timing of this. We have how much time until we have to make a decision on this? My police. The July 20th Council meeting would be the last to act on the issue on the item as a non-emergency. Thank you. And Reagan. One thing I wanted to respond to your initial question, Miranda, correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing in what we're voting on today requires us to eliminate a primary. We could talk through that in the subsequent protocol ordinance that Miranda described. Is that true, Miranda or. So in a situation where there were two or fewer candidates who have filed for a county office, the ordinance provides a choice essentially for either using ranked choice, voting or whatever is currently prescribed in state law regarding elections for nonpartisan officers. However, barring that scenario, the ordinance would direct that there would not be a primary for impacted offices. Just in one scenario. Got it. Thank you. Yeah, and I'm glad to hear that. I'm more than happy to talk about that. I'm just. Just a little history lesson on right power and others will remember Lambert. We have this Montana primary system. And initially what happened was the the parties were able to begin to hold nominating conventions to determine their preferred candidate. It would be then sent forward to the King County Council. And and. And so what you got during that process was a candidate who was strongly preferred by their party in a very small nominating convention. And there was this one guy named Reagan Dunn, who barely lost his nominating convention. It was like 51 to 49 or something. And then the federal judge threw it out and allowed for the top two system to come through. And so you just got to be mindful that parties will do what they can to control the outcomes no matter what we want to do. At the King County Council. I was fortunate to win that election years later. But anyway, that's a little factoid that I just want us to be a thoughtful of as we move through this process. I just want to point out for the record, we were while the legislation was informally here, we prepared for briefing. We had a briefing on the topic and knew the legislation was introduced last time. The committee of the whole met for the questions discussion. Dombroski on the point of the primary. Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was a little confused by the last answer. I apologize, but I was reading lines 38 and 39 of the ordinance, page 19 of our materials. And as I read it, it says When ranked choice voting is conducted, there shall not be a primary for impacted officers and all qualified candidates shall appear directly on the general election ballot. I think, you know, the issue of a primary is one that's of interest and concern to me. So again, it seems to me and I'm unclear as to when there wouldn't be a. Primary or when there would be a said only when there's two candidates, or is that an open question in and of itself? So thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski. So currently the proposed ordinance directs in a situation where there's two or fewer candidates that have filed for a county election, that there's a choice to either use the ranked choice, voting, telling a system or defaulting to state law regarding elections for nonpartisan offices. I will note, though, just for a little bit of context, that per state law, primaries can also be held for nonpartisan offices, except when there are two or a few fewer candidates that have filed for the position. In that case, the names would be on the general election ballot. So I think essentially the net effect would be the same and that makes sense. I'm sorry, it doesn't. I'm confused and it's probably just me. I guess the basic question is how would you use ranked choice voting when there's only two candidates? You said there's a choice to use it or not. There is. Yes. Would ranked choice voting work with two candidates in terms of having a potential different outcome? It would essentially it would be similar to if there's a last round of vote tallying and there's only two candidates, whoever has the majority and the vote tallying wins would win. I'm not sure if I'm making this clear, as my. Guess is how. Would that be different than our top two system today day the general election where we have two candidates. Sure. So I don't understand. Sure. So essentially the net effect would be the same councilmember. Those two names would advance to the general election ballot and would appear on their ballot. So it'd be kind of the same in process. It would be those two names that would be on the general election ballot. Okay, let me put it a different way. Under ranked choice voting with two candidates, is it possible to have a different outcome than we would have today with no councilmember WG shaking her head okay, she gets. I didn't think so. I was trying to figure that. Is there's a huge write in. I mean there have to be like you need to inject a third thing or else you get 50 somebody gets 50% plus one and there's only two. Okay. Thank you. I mean, it's just math, I think. I mean, I could. I could be corrected. You sound right to me, Claudia. Thank you. Okay. Further questions. I have a I have a quick question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please. So as we discussed at the last briefing, one of the concerns that I have, so I feel like for those listening because there's so much interest in this topic, I just want to say a quick thing. I'm very intrigued by this option. I think it works. It does achieve a lot of the goals that the folks advocating for it suggest. If you haven't, I will circulate. There's a podcast that I'm forgetting which one, but it walks all the way through arranged choice, voting election day in Ireland. And it's well worth listening to because it's hard, I think, to grasp how it works until you've walked through it once. And if you've walked through it once, then it makes perfect sense. But but there's a lot of a lot of hope that there will be great outcomes in terms of increasing voter choice, increasing the number and diversity of candidates, and making people feel more connected and like their votes count. Responding to racial imbalance. I mean, there's a lot of claims here, but I don't know that we've dug into very deeply to know whether they pan out in all ways, in all places. I really think the jury is out on the New York City experiment because the problems may not have been due to ranked choice voting as a system. They certainly were. They certainly did occur in the context of doing a big change and in running the test ballot that came along with the new voting system. Things went awry, as far as I can tell. And so you do take a risk in shifting. And I just want to say on behalf of King County that our founding method works really pretty well. I mean, we have had record turnout votes in a couple of recent years. Including in including. In 2017, I believe, which was an odd numbered year. So that's that's quite something. So I'm intrigued by the potential and do not want to break or do anything to our current voting system to cause confusion. And I'm also a little bit concerned because I'm hearing this new but growing interest in a slightly different form of choice voting, which is the approval voting we heard about today. And so for all of those reasons, my hope was that if we put this out to the voters and I absolutely agree that asking the voters to be the ones to tell us they want voting, evolution and, you know, and different and more flexible ways of voting, that we not lock ourselves into doing something, making a promise that we will do ranked choice, voting at a certain time. Because I think we should take the wisdom of our charter commission, who advised us that we should convene a diverse and inclusive task force to examine implementation of ranked choice voting and issue report and findings. I think we should do that. So I want to make sure that if this gets put on to the ballot that it clearly, clearly says it allows for this system doesn't require or commit to the system so that we can do the work that we need to do in order to implement something new. I really heard the testimony of some folks who said there's been not much process around this. I know in Seattle area we have a reputation for over processing things and this has not been processed. It's not been over processed. It's barely been processed at all. So I would love to have that opportunity to have that happen if this is to go forward. I know there are different thoughts on this, but it was really important to me. So all that to say when I look at the language itself. If you read it closely, it says we shall go to ranked choice voting after after adoption of piece of legislation. It doesn't say we must adopt that legislation, but I think it implies that we will and potentially sets up an expectation in the voters minds that if they vote yes on this, they are going to definitely get ranked choice voting and it's going to happen, you know, relatively soon. So I just want to ask Maranda, what is your reading of that section? I can point to the line, but you could probably find it. It's not a long piece of legislation. I would love if that were a little clear. Like I would love that shell was a me because I really think that that's just speaking for myself as one of nine. That's what I would be looking for. So, Miranda, can you. I can point to the line your viewers are. Oh, sorry. I made myself there. Thank you, Councilmember. So I think that's one of the policy choices for the council. So, as I've mentioned and as currently drafted, you're exactly right. Regarding effective date is that the proposed amendment would go into effect by January after council's adoption of the ordinance approving rancorous voting protocols. What the ordinance is silent about is the the when and the whether that council would approve that ranked choice voting protocols ordinance. So again, just hypothetically, if the voters were to approve the proposed charter amendment but council didn't approve the protocols ordinance, then the charter amendment would not take effect. So kind of council with the impetus would be on council to approve that ordinance. But the ordinance does not specify when or whether council would need to do so. I hope it helps. It does help. And so it says what I what I thought it said and that's helpful confirmation. Thank you. But I guess I will just say to my colleagues. Again, just speaking from my own position here, I would prefer that it be clear to the public that what they were doing was a stepwise process and step one would be sending the signal via the charter amendment that that they wanted to see us move towards ranked choice voting with the understanding that there was more work to be done. And I think that this might need a little a few more words, which I will if if we get past this point today, I will propose that final adoption. Thank you. Madam Chair. It's not me today. Sorry, I got used to it, Mr. Chair. No worries, council members. Hello. Thanks, Joe. I wanted to ask for central staff if they could provide some clarity on the process for what language goes on the ballot. We're voting on an ordinance, this exact language that's in the ordinance with no explainers. Go into the into onto the ballot. If this were to pass or could we do what Councilmember Balducci is suggesting and provide more clarity in a lead in language that says, hey, if you if voters if you pass this, this is just step one of two. And if this would not happen, we would not have ranked choice voting immediately upon your vote to approve that you would be giving the council the green light to implement a protocol's ordinance. Sure. So thank you, Councilmember, for the questions regarding your first question. The language that would appear regarding the language is that it would appear on the ballot that is outlined in the proposed ordinance in section two, which starts around 940. So that's basically the substantially the language that would appear on the ballot itself. Regarding your second question, if the council members wanted to offer an amendment to add to make a change to the proposed ordinance, you could certainly do so at full council as well. So that is an option for the council members. Thank you. Councilmember Balducci, I would support a clarifying amendment for Section two that would actually clarify for voters that this is step one of two and step two is not guaranteed something. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I would work with your office on that. And after we see what happens here. Thanks. Emotion point. Number. DEMBOSKY. Thank you. Just engaging in this kind of dialog here with colleagues, I to read the Charter Review Commission special memorandum on this. And looking back when we had what Councilmember Dunn talked about, the turmoil around the litigation and our PARTIZAN primaries and that kind of stuff. Then Secretary of State Ralph Monroe traveled the state and had nearly a dozen community meetings to talk to voters about what the new system should be. And I think that's kind of the recommendation that the Charter Review Commission gave here. Ultimately, by the way, our voters approved a top two system in King County by 55%, 60% statewide. I think we've got to be real careful about making changes to that, particularly when there's a lot of open questions in this ordinance. Goes to this two step notion I have concerns about. Turning over, if you will, the details of developing the final system to US politicians. I would be much more comfortable with a public process that comes forward with a more specific recommendation on how to do either rank choice or the the other the other varieties of voting. But I'd like that explored more in dialog with the community as recommended by the Charter Review Commission. And so then go to the voters with a more specific proposal that they knew what they were buying, if you will. I feel like we're kind of talking a little bit about an advisory ballot here. And by the way, our charter allows for that. One option. If we wanted to take the pulse of the voters, might say, hey, on an advisory vote, would you like us to convene a commission and develop a ranked choice voting system or other system that has been talked to, to send forward? That might be something we could consider. Bigger picture. I really want to commend the advocates for this because I see their motivation and I agree with it. And I think it's even broader than this system of voting. I think we ought to look at issues of public financing. And campaigns. We ought to look at issues of whether or not we expand the right to vote beyond citizenship, since a lot of folks who aren't citizens pay taxes and are subject to our systems of laws here, and I wonder if we wouldn't be advised to convene this this workgroup here and have them look at these broader issues. I think there's also value in putting a charter amendment of this magnitude on an even year ballot when there is more participation by a broader set of the electorate. In our off years, we have traditionally lower turnout and we would be listening to more voices if we did some more work between now and a year from now and maybe send these questions to the to the voters, then I have some concerns about the substance. I like our primary system. I think there's real value in winnowing. We going to have ranked choice in a way it's not as precise. But I think there's value in debate and vetting candidates between our primary and general, and I am concerned a little bit I'd like to know more about in terms of having voices heard this San Francisco experience where 27% of the voters in the final count there had no say. Right, 20, 27% didn't make a choice in the top two. They were gone with our top two that that doesn't happen. So those are kind of some of my concerns, but I am very, very intrigued by the possibility that the system could achieve some of the results in terms of increased diversity of candidates. But ultimately and I think everybody she articulated this better caution for me is the word here. We have built, I think, the best election system in the country. Do not forget the governors election where that led to these reforms, where it was not good, we were not performing well. And that public distrust that grew out of that and that stayed with us for a long time, it's hard to overcome. So I think, you know, we've got to be careful here when we're doing these changes. They should be done in consultation with the public in our elections. Expert I see Julie Wise has joined us and I think if this comes to Washington and maybe Julie could talk to this director, talk Douglas, I think we ought to do it here in King County because I have confidence that we'll do it well. But there, I think, remain for me a bunch of unopened specifics that I would like the voters to weigh in rather than give us a general direction and have us figure it out in an ordinance. So that's kind of where I am. I wouldn't be prepared to proceed today and would prefer that we have a further public process and explore some of those broader issues. From the discussion. Lambert Council member. LAMBERT Thank you, sir. Well, I too agree with the things I've been hearing from the last two speakers. I believe that we do need to do this cautiously and that we do have a very good system right now. And, you know, the people are mostly feeling confident in the good work that our elections people do. But it is confusing as you listen to this system and how do you audit it and. I think that when you start putting on some ballots, some things that are ranked and some things that are not. It becomes even more confusing for the voters. And I was on the canvasing board for a year and I did see and hear a lot of things about voter being confused and such. Even with turning the ballot over and making sure that there was marks on that. So we we really need to be cautious about how confusing we make this. And I look at the costs and just with the very basics, you know, 30,000 foot level is over $1,000,000. We have a lot of needs in this county and $1,000,000 is a lot of money to be putting into something. But we couldn't even implement for 3 to 5 years anyway. And we're spending a lot of time on right now. As was mentioned earlier, the situation in New York recently didn't go smoothly. And so in many things, I like to be at the front of the pack, but this is one I think that we should allow the other areas in the country who are doing this to work out some of the bugs. So that being the 13th largest, it's much easier to figure out some of the bugs when you are that 2,467th largest county in the United States than it is to be the 13th largest. So I think this is this is something that I think we should look at. But study and I don't see any rush to get it on by November. I do have a question. Do we know why Pierce County repealed it? And then in looking on page 13, where are they able to have went over the ballot exhaustion in reading that section? It's a little confusing about the nearly 3% that were exhausted. And if we could go over that and then you, our candidates reach the 12th round of vote tally, how in the world would you be able to audit back for 12 different rounds and how long would it take? Okay. So thank you, Councilmember. Regarding your question on oh, actually, let's start with your question regarding, um, Pierce County example. So from what I read, there were a number of reasons that were cited. I think a couple that stood out are in 2008 five members were recall, I think. I believe that was the same year that the state Supreme Court reinstated or upheld the state's top two primary system. If members will recall, there was a period in the early 2000 that there there was a partizan primary that was used. And then in 2008, the top two primary was reinstated, which coincidentally was the same year that ranked choice voting was implemented in Pierce County. So that was one thing that was mentioned. Another is, if I recall correctly, the way that it implemented is that in Pierce County, when ranked choice voting was implemented, voters, I believe, received two ballots in the mail. So one, regarding the ranked choice voting impacted offices, and then another ballot for all of the other offices or measures or etc., everything else that was on the ballot. So that was another thing that I recall reading in terms of the potential confusion for voters. But again, there were a number of things, issues or variables that were cited. Those are just a couple of examples. On your other question relating to ballot exhaustion. So as I mentioned, ballot exhaustion occurs when a ballot is no longer countable in Italy. So, for example, if there are multiple rounds and a person, all of a person's ranked candidates have already been eliminated, then hypothetically in the final round of vote tallying, if all of a voter's ranked candidates have been eliminated from their ballots would not be counted in the final round just because they wouldn't still have a candidate ranked candidates in the in the results, if that makes sense. Another reason could be if a voter just decided not to rank voters ranked candidate if they just selected their. Top. Candidate and that was it, then that would only be factored as long as that candidate was still a continuing candidate. So those are just a couple of variables that could factor into ballot exhaustion. I hope that speaks to your question, Councilmember. Excellent. Point of order. Thank you. And I'm sorry to to just get on to procedural stuff, but we do have another very important, very time sensitive item from my district on the agenda today, and I really hope we can get to that. And just as as the council chair, I would offer that if we can't vote one or more of these charter amendments out today, we have multiple options to continue moving them forward and meet our timelines for the November ballot. We can pull them from committee. We can we can do an emergency if we don't make the deadline for the maximum processing time. Well, we can allow for less than the maximum processing time and we can do an emergency. I'm not suggesting any of those are ideal, but I really do hope we can get to the land transfer, purchase and sale agreement today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember? No, she makes a good point. The chair is very aware that we have another charter amendment and a landfill that is essential. We do take up today or would need to move to full council in and and take action at full council next week without with or without committee work. And I believe that members would want the briefing and committee work and exposure to the issue, to the. Further discussion action on this item. Mr. Chair, council members, all. I, I just wanted to put out there an option. I think the next item on the agenda is also one that I'm sponsoring. I would be happy to move it down and the agenda or hear it at another point. If that means council member do cheese legislation gets to be heard sooner. Great. And thank you. We have been briefed on ordinance 2021 232. Is there further discussion, further action? I would like to move to. Discuss members of life. I would like to move the legislation. Is that in order right now? Yes. Okay. Council members are hereby has moved adoption of ordinance 2021 to 32 council members. Hello. Do we need to. Listen to the amendments to the legislation before we vote on it. We will take it, brief them and take them up. Yes, to the ordinances before us. If you wish to speak further to it now or brief amendments now. We can brief amendments now. My last concern, if you can bring us amendments one and two for sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Amendment one, it's included in your packet on page 22 that would correct the reference to the election date and the ordinance just to align with state law regarding general elections that are held an odd number of years. Additionally, it would make a technical correction when referring to a scenario where there is no more than two candidates that have filed for an office by changing the verbiage. Only two candidates have filed two. Two or fewer candidates have filed. That is Amendment one. Amendment two, again, that was emailed to members yesterday morning. That relates to effective date. What it would do is change the effective dates from January 1st following council's adoption of the ranked Choice Voting Protocols Ordinance to January 1st. Following the Council's adoption of that ordinance or January 1st, 2026, whichever occurs first. That's Amendment two. And that completes. Thank you. So the ordinance is before us. Amendments would be in order. I move both the amendments. Mr. Chair. Council member has always moved adoption of Amendment One. Further discussion. I believe this is just a technical one. All those in favor of Amendment one please signify by saying I. I am. Opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. Amendment one is adopted. Council members all. Way I move. Amendment two. Mr. Chair. Amendment two is before us. Discussion. Mr. Chair, according to our King County Elections Department and their technology vendors, it would take 3 to 5 years to get the system up and running. So this amendment would give us a timeline at the top of that range. If we really do want ranked choice voting, I think it's important to have a timeline to give us more of a sense of urgency. The alternative of no timeline, which I have for the record, I would still support. The alternative would be asking our communities to invest a lot of time, energy and resources into getting something passed with no reassurance that we're actually going to act on an ordinance. I understand all of the concerns that my colleagues have shared, and like I mentioned before, even if this amendment doesn't pass, I would still move forward without a timeline either. But I think it's important to at least attempt to have a timeline for this. Thank you. Thank you for the discussion. Dombrowski Councilmember Dombrowski. Because this seems to implicate implementation in our elections department and we have Director Wise here. Would it be appropriate to have her views on this timing issue? Ms. ways. I don't. Ed Sheeran was there. We go his ways. Mr. Chair, council members, it's great to see you this morning. For the record, Julie Wise, County director of elections. It is true we believe a 3 to 5 year implement implementation timeline is necessary. Mostly due to that, we want our current vendor clear ballot or tabulation system to add ranked choice voting to that system and software. So they have given us that timetable as they need to develop it, implement it into their system, test it thoroughly, and get it certified at the federal and state levels prior to us implementing. Parallel to that 3 to 5 years, we could do voter education and outreach and make sure we have all of the resources in in-house to successfully conduct ranked choice voting. Thank you for the discussion on Amendment two. A group council member of the group. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is I apologize. Just getting some clarification. This says it will be implemented by 2026, even in the absence of ordinance by the council. Is that correct? Miranda That's correct. Council member at the Grove. I'm sorry. I need some clarity on that question and answer. If this amendment is adopted and the charter amendment is out with this amendment is adopted. It doesn't require ranked choice voting by a certain date. Certain? Yes. Councilman McDermott, essentially it would say that ring true if if the charter amendment were approved by the voters and ranked choice voting, it would direct that ranked choice voting would be implemented by no later than January 1st of 2026. Thus there would be binding a future council to take to adopted an implementation ordinance, or would be left with resolving what to do with the implementation ordinance and a requirement in the Charter. So it wouldn't it would not require council to adopt the protocols ordinance. However, if council did not do so by January 1st of 2026, then ranked choice voting would still take into effect. It would still be implement. Thank you for the discussion. Asking councilmembers in Belsky. How would that work? Given the open questions in the. Ordinance here if there's no protocol ordinance adopted. And I think there are some legal questions about binding future councils. Sure. So thank you, Councilmember Tobolowsky. So the directions that are included in the ordinance right now in terms of voting won't be conducted in rounds until one candidate gets a majority of the votes that it would default to that direction. In addition, if Department of election needed to adopted public roles regarding to the administration of ranked choice voting, then perhaps Director Wise could speak more to that. But that may be required as well in the absence of a specific ordinance that would lay out those details. Mr. Chair, council members outlined the intent of this amendment is only to provide the communities and the supporters who want to see evolution in our system some reassurance that we're actually going to act because it's going to take a lot of energy resources, public education, to actually inform voters about what ranked choice voting does, and a lot of energy and resources to ultimately not get anything if the voters approve it. And we don't act on that. So that's the intent of this. But if it's if it's not doing what the intent is for my colleagues, I would be happy to table this one and discuss further at another time. So I'll go ahead and withdraw the amendment amendment to withdraw. And we have ordinance 2021 232 as amended before us. Discussion. Mr. Chair. Sorry, this is Miranda. There is a corresponding title amendment that would be needed. Title Amendment 81 members can find where Ms. less than in. Page 23 of your packets and start. On page 23 repack council members. Hello. These are without surgery. Taiwan is before us. I've seen no discussion of this in favor of adopting Taiwan. I oppose. No, the ayes have it. Ordinance 2021 to 32 as amended. Discussion. Councilmember Carl Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to mention my support and glad to be a co-sponsor of this ordinance. I had worked on this issue for many years while in the state Senate. One of the biggest advocates for it was Krist Novoselic from Nirvana Band. And John became was extremely engaged over many years. And in many delving into this issue, I found that there are so many reasons to have ranked choice voting that could be very helpful, especially when there are a lot of candidates and people otherwise can become very disappointed with the person who came in first and would have preferred to have the opportunity to support their second choice. And it could be even a third choice, but I think overall it provides for and promotes a greater participation in our democratic system. And I think we're taking a very good approach on what we're doing here. And I look forward to seeing councilmember member delegations amendment, which I think could be very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the discussion. DEMBOSKY Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Thank you, Mr.. For the concerns I've raised before, particularly the rushed nature of this, the open questions and the elimination of the primary. I can't be supportive. Today, I'd like to have more dialog and more specificity, particularly on an issue of this magnitude. So I'm going to be a no on this. And I just it's very regrettable to me that we would. Rush this on this schedule and and not follow the recommendations that were a charter review commission. I just think there's a lot more work to do. This has some promise and I'm interested in it, but not on this not on this kind of approach. Thank you, Councilmember Gardner. Thanks. It's an interesting area in subject matter and I am always looking for improvements in the process. But my concerns are twofold. Your first is is it does feel rushed. And there's there's some work that I think we can do. Basic questions that need to be asked in ways to mitigate this amendment. This is coming pretty fast. I appreciate, Mr. Chair, that we had a briefing out of this. That's good. But this is a heavy piece of legislation. Yes, it is. We kind of work at the county level in improving our system of elections, going all the way back to that critical election. Okay. So how did the patients get this stuff? Too much just yet. That really thoughtful process. I'm intrigued by some of the concepts that are here and that I can't support it today, but we are committed to that things. Thank you, Councilmember again, Councilmember Balducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I find myself in the really unenviable position of agreeing with pretty much everything everybody is saying, I there's nothing that has been. I particularly want to acknowledge Councilmember Dombrowski is concerned and his thoughts and ideas that he's expressed today. I feel that a vote against this today would put a stop to the discussion right here and now. And I know that we're on a very tight timeline. I also feel that there hasn't been as much process as one would like. However, I want to continue to allow the opportunity to move the discussion forward today. So I'm going to vote yes today, but I do believe that there is work to be done between now and getting to the place where I could vote for this to go on the ballot on final passage, as I've said, but as I've said previously, I won't reiterate those concerns, but I look forward to working with a couple key colleagues here, the sponsor and possibly Councilmember Dombrowski, to see if there is something we can do that would be responsive to the really good and legitimate work that's been done around voting. I keep saying evolution because I don't believe we need reform. I don't believe I voting system is broken, but it can always grow and improve. I really want to advance that work and support the folks who are doing it. And maybe there's a there's a way to do that while not risking the system that we have. That really does work pretty well here in King County. So I will vote yes on this today, but I think there's work to be done before final passage. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the discussion. Sure. Council member Von Rector. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all the comments that have been made. I think that we're all coming from that. Each one of us is coming from a corner of the room. But I think we all want to get to the right position. It is a frustrating issue because the arguments have been extremely well outlined by the proponents. I just want more time, but I'm going to take the to route and move forward the motion, the action to the next full council meeting. But I feel very strongly that we need some more input and more discussion and hopefully a lot more work. Thank you, Councilmember, for the discussion. Council members are allowed to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank all of my colleagues for all of these thoughtful and very valid, all the thoughtful and very valid feedback. I think we're going to get the ordinance to a much better place because of your input, and I look forward to doing that work if this passes out of committee today . So thank you again for listening and I look forward to working with each and every one of you on this. If this were to pass, I urge your support to send this to full council so that we can continue to sharpen and make it better and deliver a much better system of voting, in my opinion and in the opinion of many for our constituents. Thank you so much. Thank you. And with that, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, DG I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. No. Councilmember Dunn. No. Councilmember COLAs. Councilmember Lambert. So. Council member of the Grove I. Councilmember Bond right there. I. Councilman Brazile. Mr. Chair. I. Mr. Chair, the vote of six ICE Council members, Dombroski Dunn and Lambert voting no thank you. By your vote, we have given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2021 to 32. We will advance into full council and I believe, expedited to next Tuesday's meeting. With that, we will advance to item eight on today's agenda.