The Ballot Bulletin: August 2017

• Redistricting
  • State-by-state redistricting procedures
  • Gerrymandering
• Voting policy
  • Voter identification laws by state
  • Automatic voter registration
  • Early voting
  • Absentee voting
  • Online voter registration
• Ballot access
  • Ballot access for presidential candidates
  • Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
  • List of political parties in the United States

Stay on top of election policy news throughout the states

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

In The Ballot Bulletin, Ballotpedia tracks developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels. To shed light on the developments, each edition features an interview with an individual involved in election policy: election administrators, policy activists, legislators, academics, and more. We will also discuss recent prominent events relating to electoral and primary systems, redistricting, and voter provisions.

This month's edition: Due to ongoing developments, in Maine and elsewhere, surrounding ranked-choice voting (RCV), we decided to sit down with Casey Carl, city clerk of Minneapolis, Minn., to discuss the implementation and impact of RCV in greater detail. We'll also get you caught up on recent developments surrounding RCV in Maine, alleged partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, and automatic voter registration in Connecticut.

Five questions with Casey Carl, city clerk of Minneapolis

In 2006, voters in Minneapolis approved a city charter amendment establishing ranked-choice voting for municipal elections. Ballotpedia sat down with Casey Carl, the city clerk of Minneapolis since 2010, to discuss the practical aspects and impacts of ranked-choice voting.

Ballotpedia: Describe the history of ranked-choice voting in Minneapolis.

Casey Carl: Minneapolis voters adopted the single-transferrable vote (STV) voting methodology for the conduct of its municipal elections by referendum in 2006. While STV is the underlying methodology, we refer to this as ranked-choice voting, or RCV. We use it for all municipal seats, which accounts for 22 races on the municipal ballot. Municipal elections are conducted in the odd-numbered years following regular presidential elections. The municipal races include mayor, city council (13 elected from separate wards), the Park and Recreation Board of Commissioners (six elected from separate districts and three elected at large), and the Board of Estimate and Taxation (two elected at large).

BP: How have voters in Minneapolis responded to RCV? Has there been any confusion or complaints?

Carl: Yes, but I think that’s to be expected. Change is always accompanied by some level of confusion and complaint. In my experience, some folks complain about RCV being confusing without even knowing what it is or how it works; yet, when you take the time to talk through how it actually works, they discover it really isn’t difficult, overly complicated, or confusing at all. In fact, when you can get to a one-to-one conversation, most folks quickly grasp the reality that all of us “rank” choices in our daily lives. It’s almost intuitive in some regard, and when they see how that applies to an election you can see the light bulb switch on inside their mind. I think for many folks the idea of making any change of any kind to the process of voting is immediately rejected out of fear that any change would make the process worse. People tend to more easily accept that change is bad. It’s like the old adage where everyone agrees a change is necessary, but when you ask who is willing to actually step up to make a change, no one is willing to be first.

BP: Has there been any appreciable impact on voter turnout?

Carl: I think it’s too soon to see if RCV has any impact on turnout. I don’t believe that voters will choose to participate or not participate merely based on the voting method that is used. Research consistently shows that turnout is primarily driven by interesting and competitive campaigns, important/controversial ballot questions or initiatives, etc. The ballot style, voting method, and tabulation processes are largely administrative and opaque to voters—I am not convinced, based on only two experiences with RCV, that anyone could reasonably conclude that RCV in and of itself either encourages or discourages voter participation.

BP: In practice, how has the work of election administrators in Minneapolis changed as a result of RCV?

Carl: Significantly, and in ways I’m not certain we even fully appreciate yet since we’ve only had the one experience under our belts (2013). We are preparing for the city's third use of RCV for the 2017 municipal election. Ironically, between 2013 and 2017, I’ve had almost 100 percent turnover in my Elections Division, with the exception of the Elections Director; thus, I am preparing for the third RCV election in the City of Minneapolis with a largely new/inexperienced team. That means that every RCV election has involved a new set of elections administrators (2009, 2013, and now 2017).

BP: On the whole, how would you describe the impact of RCV in Minneapolis?

Carl: I’ve only been part of the 2013 municipal election using RCV, so my experience is very limited. But I recall that the campaigning was much different in tone. Candidates weren’t attacking each other; there was a much more civil tone throughout the campaign. The news media even picked up on this, and several editorialists, political commentators, and others referred to this in 2013. So far, in this year’s campaign, there seems to be a bit more sparring, but even that has been done in a slightly different political tone. Instead of attacking other candidates in a personal way or making personal commentary, candidates are instead really highlighting choices or priorities that distinguish them from others in the race. So, the focus has really been on issues, how policy options are prioritized, or the way candidates might respond to issues or needs within the community. In 2013 and so far in 2017 campaign rhetoric has been less personalized, but does focus more on the substance of particular issues that are important to the community.

Electoral and primary systems

Two bills addressing ranked-choice voting in Maine fail to advance

• What's the story? In April 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion finding that the state's ranked-choice voting law, adopted by voters via ballot initiative in November 2016, violated the Maine Constitution. In light of the advisory opinion (which was non-binding), state lawmakers introduced two separate bills, both of which failed to clear the legislature. Details on the two failed bills are presented below:
  • LD 1625: Introduced on May 31, 2017, by Sen. Garrett Mason (R-22), LD 1625 proposed to repeal the law. On June 27, 2017, the Maine State Senate voted 21 to 13 to pass the repeal bill. That same day, the Maine House of Representatives voted 79 to 66, with six members not voting, to pass an amended version of LD 1625. The House iteration of the bill provided for ranked-choice voting in congressional general elections and congressional and state primary elections (this version also would have permitted ranked-choice voting in state legislative and gubernatorial general elections should the state constitution be amended to authorize ranked-choice voting in these contests). On June 28, 2017, the Senate voted 20 to 15 to reject the House amendments.
  • LD 1624: Introduced on May 31, 2017 by Sen. Cathy Breen (D-25), LD 1624 proposed amending the state constitution to provide for ranked-choice voting. A constitutional amendment must be approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature before going to voters for final approval. On June 23, 2017, the House of Representatives voted 78 to 68 to approve the measure, falling short of the required two-thirds majority (101 members).
• What comes next? On June 29, 2017, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) said that his office would prepare to implement ranked-choice voting systems in Maine. According to the Portland Press Herald, Rep. Kent Ackley (I) of Monmouth sponsored legislation proposing partial implementation of the ranked-choice voting law. Ackley's bill would permit ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections for Maine's congressional seats; it would not permit ranked-choice voting for state offices, in recognition of the state supreme court's April advisory opinion. On July 19, 2017, the Legislative Council approved the bill unanimously. According to the Press Herald, a full vote on the legislation was expected to occur in early August.
• What's going on in the rest of the country? As of July 31, 2017, 33 bills relating to ranked-choice voting had been introduced in state legislatures across the nation. The first map below identifies states in which electoral systems legislation has been introduced in 2017 (including bills pertaining to ranked-choice voting). The second map identifies states in which primary systems legislation has been introduced. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. For full details about electoral systems legislation, see this article. For full details about primary systems legislation, see this article.

Electoral systems legislation as of July 31, 2017

Primary systems legislation as of July 31, 2017

Redistricting

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Wisconsin redistricting case dealing with partisan gerrymandering

• What's the story? On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear Gill v. Whitford, a case addressing the constitutionality of the district map for the Wisconsin State Assembly. In November 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down the map, finding that it constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander "intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters ... by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats." The district court later ordered Wisconsin lawmakers to draw a remedial map by November 1, 2017, for use in the November 2018 election. Shortly after announcing that it would hear the case in the coming term, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay the district court's remedial order.
• What comes next? The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford on October 3, 2017. According to SCOTUSblog, a decision is expected some time in 2018. If the Supreme Court affirms the district court decision, it will mark the first time that the high court has struck down a map on the basis of partisan gerrymandering.
• What's going on in the rest of the country? The map below identifies states in which redistricting legislation has been introduced in 2017. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. For full details about redistricting legislation, see this article.

Redistricting legislation as of July 31, 2017

Voting provisions

Rhode Island becomes ninth state to adopt automatic voter registration

• What's the story? On July 19, 2017, Governor Gina Raimondo (D) signed into law H5702, establishing automatic voter registration in Rhode Island. H5702 cleared the Rhode Island House of Representatives on May 31, 2017, by a vote of 62-10 (with three members not voting). The Rhode Island State Senate approved H5702 on June 30, 2017, by a vote of 27-5 (with five members not voting). Under the law, Rhode Island citizens will be automatically registered to vote when they visit Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) branches for driver's license or personal identification document applications or renewals. Citizens may opt out if they choose to do so.
• What comes next? The law is set to take effect 30 days after the director of the DMV certifies to state lawmakers that the state's motor vehicle licensing system can meet the requirements established by the law.
• What's going on in the rest of the country? Rhode Island is the ninth state to adopt automatic voter registration. The others include Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia.

See also

• Election policy on Ballotpedia
• Electoral systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2017
• Primary systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2017
• Redistricting legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2017
• Federal redistricting legislation in the United States, 2017-2019 (115th Congress)