Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Memphis, Tennessee, Referendum 5, Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (November 2008)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Memphis Referendum 5

Flag of Tennessee.png

Election date

November 4, 2008

Topic
Local elections and campaigns and Local electoral systems
Status

ApprovedApproved

Type
Referral


Memphis Referendum 5 was on the ballot as a referral in Memphis on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported adopting ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, for municipal elections.

A "no" vote opposed adopting ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, for municipal elections.


Election results

Memphis Referendum 5

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

155,785 70.70%
No 64,571 29.30%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Full text

Below is the full text of Referendum No. 5:[1]

2008 Amendment No. 5, adopted by the City of Memphis Charter Commission on August 21, 2008, proposes the City of Memphis Charter be amended as follows:

Instant Runoff Voting.

(1) Instant Runoff Voting For City Elections. Consistent with the mandates of federal and state law, and all applicable court decisions, the City of Memphis will use Instant Runoff Voting for city elections.

(2) Instant Runoff Voting Defined. Instant Runoff Voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Any candidate receiving a majority of the first-preferences for that office wins the election. If no such candidate exists, an instant runoff tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever non-eliminated candidate is ranked highest. After each round, the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, with the votes for that candidate redistributed to the remaining non-eliminated candidates based on the order of preferences indicated on each of the affected ballots. If the redistribution of votes results in a candidate receiving a majority of the votes, that candidate is elected. Otherwise, the candidate then having the fewest votes shall be eliminated, and the votes are redistributed as before, with the process of candidate elimination and vote redistribution continuing until one candidate has a majority of the votes counted for any candidate in that round. The Election Commission shall adopt regulations consistent with the procedure above to facilitate implementation of instant runoff voting.

(3) Effective Date. This section shall go into effect prior to the next municipal election unless the Election Commission certifies that voting machine limitations make its implementation in time for that election unfeasible.

I, Roland McElrath, Director of City of Memphis Division of Finance, hereby certify this Amendment will result in an estimated cost savings of $250,000.00 to the City of Memphis on an annual basis[2]

Aftermath

See also: Memphis, Tennessee, Referendum Ordinance No. 5677, Eliminate Run-Off Elections (November 2018)

On July 20, 2017, the Shelby County Election Commission announced plans to implement ranked-choice voting for city council elections in Memphis beginning in October 2019. The change was approved by voters as a city charter amendment in 2008, but, according to Elections Administrator Linda Phillips, the change was not implemented at the time because the commission did not think it had the equipment necessary. Phillips said that the city's existing "equipment can capture the voter’s intent, but cannot do the actual tabulation of votes," thereby requiring manual counting of votes; still, Phillips said that ranked-choice voting would be "much cheaper and less trouble than holding a separate runoff election.” The commission announced plans to run a mock election to test the system. The commission also announced that additional ordinances must be passed to address specific policy questions, such as whether ranked-choice voting will apply only to the seven single-member election districts or to all 13 districts.[3][4]

On October 17, 2017, according to The Commercial Appeal, the Memphis City Council voted unanimously to "instruct its attorney … to draft an ordinance that, if approved, would force another referendum vote in 2018 on whether to repeal" ranked-choice voting (RCV) for city council elections.[5]

On November 14, 2017, the Memphis Daily News reported that Tennessee Elections Coordinator Mark Goins had informed Phillips that RCV is not permissible under state law. In a letter dated September 26, 2017, Goins said, "The process of manually distributing votes and having multiple rounds of reallocating votes to determine the winner is not authorized by any of the current statutes in Tennessee law." Memphis City Council member Edmund Ford, Jr., an RCV opponent, said that he would continue advocating for a repeal referendum and questioned whether county election administrators were attempting to circumvent state law: "It seems that the Shelby County election commission and others have known for over two years that instant-runoff with two opinions is not permitted without a change in state law. Which leads me to my question of conscious disregard for the law." Former Shelby County commissioner and RCV proponent Steve Mulroy said that September 26 letter did not have the force of law and that implementation should proceed: "It’s not a binding court order that forbids the elections administrator from continuing. Unless or until there is a competent authority that orders here to cease and desist implementation will continue."[6]

On February 6, 2018, the Memphis City Council voted 11-2 to schedule a referendum vote on the use of ranked-choice voting in city council elections. The vote took place on November 6, 2018.[7] The referendum was defeated, paving the way for RCV to be implemented in city elections in 2019. However, ranked-choice voting was not u sed in the 2019 city elections, and the enactment of SB1820 (see above) precluded implementation in future elections.

Background

Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures
Pages:
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
History of RCV ballot measures
Electoral systems on the ballot
Local electoral systems on the ballot
Electoral systems by state
See also: Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

The ballot measure has played a role in shaping electoral systems in the U.S., including ranked-choice voting (RCV) for state and local elections.

Since 1915, there have been more than 150 ballot measures to adopt or repeal ranked-choice voting systems. Ashtabula, Ohio, was the first jurisdiction to approve a ranked-choice voting measure in 1915.

RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates on their ballots. RCV can be used for single-winner elections or multi-winner elections; when used for multi-winner elections, the system has also been called single-transferable vote or proportional representation. These terms were often used to describe multi-winner RCV before the 1970s. You can learn more about ranked-choice voting systems and policies here.

Local RCV ballot measures

See also: History of ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures

Between 1965 and 2024, 79 ranked-choice voting (RCV) local ballot measures were on the ballot in 58 jurisdictions in 19 states.

  • Ballotpedia has located 71 local ballot measures to adopt RCV. Voters approved 52 (78.9%) and rejected 15 (21.1%).
  • There were eight local ballot measures to repeal RCV. Voters approved four (50.0%) and rejected four (50.0%).
  • The year with the most local RCV ballot measures was 2022, when nine were on the ballot in nine jurisdictions. Voters approved seven of them.
  • The state with the most local ballot measures related to RCV is California, where there have been 13.


The following table shows the number of ranked-choice voting measures by topic.

Local ranked-choice vote measures by topic and outcome, 1965 - April 2025
Topic Total Approved Approved (%) Defeated Defeated (%)
  Adopt RCV 72 57 79.2% 15 20.08%
  Repeal RCV 8 4 50.0% 4 50.0%
Total 80 61 76.3% 19 23.7%


See also

External links

Footnotes