Pierce County, Washington, Amendment 3, Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (November 2006)

Pierce County Amendment 3
Election date November 7, 2006
Topic Local charter amendments and Local elections and campaigns
Status Approved
Type Referral

Pierce County Amendment 3 was on the ballot as a referral in Pierce County on November 7, 2006. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported establishing ranked-choice voting for elected county officials except judges and prosecuting attorneys.

A "no" vote opposed establishing ranked-choice voting for elected county officials except judges and prosecuting attorneys.

Election results

Pierce County Amendment 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		103,407	52.93%
No		91,949	47.07%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 3 was as follows:

“

The Pierce County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the Pierce County Charter implementing instant runoff voting for County elected officials except judges and Prosecuting Attorney. Voters will rank candidates in order of preference at the general election. No primary election will be held. Candidates for partisan office must obtain 25 voter signatures to qualify for the ballot. Major political parties may determine which candidate may use the party label. Shall this Charter Amendment be approved?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Currently the Pierce County Charter provides that nominating primaries of all partisan offices shall be conducted in accordance with state law. Proposed Charter Amendment 3 provides that election of all county officials, except judges and the Prosecuting Attorney, shall be conducted using instant runoff voting. All qualifying candidates would appear directly on the general ballot, eliminating publicly financed primaries for affected county level offices. This proposed Amendment gives voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference. Instant runoffs would be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain. The candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected. The Amendment would require that to qualify for the ballot for partisan office, a candidate shall file with the auditor, no later than the end of filing week, petition statements supporting the candidacy with the original signatures of at least 25 qualified voters. It would also provide that the county central committee of each major party may determine which candidates may use their party label.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

A committee known as Yes on Three campaigned in support of the measure.

Supporters

Organizations

• League of Women Voters

Arguments

The official arguments included in the voter's pamphlet were as follows:

• Committee members Jim Walton, Mike Venuto, and Kelly Haughton: "Amendment 3 restores the choices we had with Washington’s traditional blanket primary by allowing voters to rank any candidates regardless of party affiliation. Candidates are elected by instant runoff voting in one high turnout election in November and need a majority of votes to win. A single ranked ballot election eliminates “spoiler” problems and results in shorter campaigns and less money in politics. Candidates will have incentive to focus on issues instead of running attack ads. Overseas military voters won’t need to submit separate primary and general election ballots."

Opposition

Opponents

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Arguments

The official arguments included in the voter's pamphlet were as follows:

• Committee members Burt Talcott, Beckie Summers, and Kevin Wimsett: "The nominating Primaries and General elections have served voters, candidates and our political system well for many decades. Both major political Parties strongly oppose IRV because its primary purpose is to weaken and destroy the political Parties which are essential to representative government. Informed voters are crucial to our electoral process; but they depend on the political Parties to recruit, develop, train, promote, and support candidates and public policies which individual voters cannot possibly accomplish for themselves. The Parties also sponsor public forums; “get out the vote;” monitor elections; hold politicians accountable. IRV would destroy the life-blood of our political system at enormous unnecessary expense. Voting for multiple unknown, untested candidates only at the General election would require multiple ballots, cause confusion and delay election results. The scheme was rejected by the 1996 Charter Review Commission. It should be rejected again."

Background

Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

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%

Path to the ballot

The charter amendment was placed on the ballot by the Pierce County Charter Review Commission.

See also

2006 Measures

• 2006 Measures
• Local elections and campaigns on the ballot
• Local charter amendments on the ballot
• Local electoral systems on the ballot
• 2006 legislative sessions

Pierce

• Pierce ballot measures
• Pierce ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Voter Pamphlet
• Election results