Pierce County, Washington, Amendment 3, Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (November 2009)

Pierce County Amendment 3
Election date November 3, 2009
Topic Local electoral systems
Status Approved
Type Referral

Pierce County Amendment 3 was on the ballot as a referral in Pierce County on November 3, 2009. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported repealing ranked-choice voting, which was established in 2006, for elected county officials except judges and prosecuting attorneys.

A "no" vote opposed repealing ranked-choice voting, which was established in 2006, for elected county officials except judges and prosecuting attorneys.

Election results

Pierce County Amendment 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		117,835	70.65%
No		48,942	29.35%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 3 was as follows:

“

The Pierce County Council passed Ordinance No. 2009-1 proposing to amend the Pierce County Charter. If approved, Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3 would eliminate Instant Runoff Voting (also known in Pierce County as “Ranked Choice Voting” or “RCV”) and restore the primary and general election system for all county elective offices in accordance with state general election law; all as set forth in Ordinance No. 2009-1. Should Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3 be: [] Approved [] Rejected

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Arguments

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

• Committee members Karen Vialle, Pat McCarthy, and John Herr: "An Approval vote on 3 is a vote to return to the 'top two' primary system of voting. Amendment 3 replaces the unpopular 'Ranked Choice Voting' with the much fairer 'top two' primary system. Voters like the 'top two' primary. Every primary vote cast in 2008 used the top two system. It provides for fair and easily administered elections. RCV backers have made a lot of promises - most of them have proven to be false. RCV is actually more expensive-$1.6 million extra. RCV confused voters. - 21,000 voters did not vote an RCV ballot, and a majority did not select a second or third choice candidate. RCV does not promote informed voting. Voters have to choose from a long list of candidates. The primary system allows voters to pick the two best candidates for the final election. RCV was an experiment. It is a flawed system. It is time to return to a fair and proven system of voting."

Opposition

Protect Voter Choice led the campaign in opposition to the measure.

Arguments

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

• Committee Members: Kelly Haughton, Rich Anderson-Connolly, and Lyz Kurnitz-Thurlow: "Amendment 3 Takes Control Away from Voters. Amendment 3 is an attempt by incumbents and insiders to rig the system. Incumbents don't like Ranked Choice Voting because it makes races more competitive and cuts in half the amount of money they can raise from big donors. The 2008 county general election had the most candidates since we adopted our Charter. By repealing RCV, incumbents want to return to unfair and uncompetitive races. RCV Keeps Costly Primary out of County Elections As party insiders are trying to repeal RCV, they are also suing to reinstate the unpopular Pick-a-Party Primary - another system they know how to manipulate. RCV saves the cost of running a primary, where most people don't vote. RCV opens the general election to political independents. Grassroots Opposition to Amendment 3 Amendment 3 is supported by incumbents and insiders. It is opposed by independent-minded citizens and the League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County. No Rigging the System! Reject Amendment 3! Reject all 3 Amendments!"

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 October 2025, 80 ranked-choice voting (RCV) local ballot measures were on the ballot in 59 jurisdictions in 19 states.

• Ballotpedia has located 72 local ballot measures to adopt RCV. Voters approved 57 (79.2%) and rejected 15 (20.8%).

• 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 policy direction.

Local ranked-choice vote measures by policy direction and outcome, 1965 - October 2025

Direction	Total	Approved	Approved (%)	Defeated	Defeated (%)
Adopt RCV	72	57	79.2%	15	20.8%
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 Council.

See also

2009 Measures

• 2009 Measures
• Local electoral systems on the ballot
• 2009 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