CfER Candidate Survey Responses - State Assembly

This page lists responses to the Californians for Electoral Reform's survey of candidates for State Assembly in the November 2002 general election. An empty box in the table indicates either that the candidate did not respond to our survey or that the candidate's response has not yet been compiled.

A bold "I" in parentheses next to a candidate's name indicates that he or she is an incumbent. A single asterisk next to a candidate's name indicates that he or she won the election by a plurality (with less than fifty percent of the votes plus one). Two asterisks next to a candidate's name indicate that he or she won the election by a majority (with more than fifty percent of the votes). Three asterisks next to a candidate's name indicate that he or she won the election by a substantial majority (with fifty-five percent or more of the votes). Four asterisks next to a candidate's name indicate that he or she won the election by a landslide (with sixty percent or more of the votes).

Survey Questions

Many communities that currently use two-round runoffs are considering Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) as a way to maintain majority winners while reducing election costs and eliminating low-turnout second elections. However, there are no procedures for conducting IRV elections in the Election Code nor in Secretary of State regulations, and general law cities cannot switch to IRV without adopting a charter. Also, not all voting equipment can easily accommodate the ranked ballots that IRV requires.

1A (IRV compatible equipment):
Do you support legislation requiring all equipment purchased with Prop 41 funds to handle ranked ballots?

1B (regulations for IRV):
Do you support legislation requiring the Secretary of State to develop regulations on conducting IRV elections?

1C (IRV for general law cities):
Do you support legislation to allow a general law city to adopt IRV by a vote of its people?

Special elections to fill vacancies in state legislative and Congressional offices are expensive, and tend to have low turnouts. The expense is doubled when a runoff is required. IRV could satisfy the majority requirement of special elections in just one election.

2 (IRV for special elections):
Do you support legislation requiring, or at least allowing, IRV to be used in special elections to fill vacancies in state legislative and Congressional offices, similar to AB 1515 (Hertzberg)?

IRV would eliminate the "spoiler effect" in closely-contested partisan races.

3A (IRV for single-winner races):
Do you support legislation requiring the use of IRV in single-winner races, including statewide offices (both partisan and non-partisan)?

3B (IRV for presidential electors):
Do you support legislation requiring the use of IRV to determine the winner of California's Presidential electors?

Many school boards are elected at-large. At-large elections tend to dilute minority voting strength and may be subject to Voting Rights challenges. The traditional solution of single-member districts can be cumbersome for a school district, and may not be able to satisfactorily provide representation when the protected groups are not geographically concentrated. Proportional and semi-proportional voting systems, such as Choice Voting, Cumulative Voting, and Limited Voting, allow for proportional representation without the need for single-member districts.

4 (PR for school boards):
Do you support legislation allowing school districts to use Choice Voting, Cumulative Voting, and/or Limited Voting in their elections?

Many city councils are also elected at-large, and suffer from the same problems as at-large school boards. While general law cities may divide themselves into districts, they cannot use a proportional or semi-proportional system without adopting a charter.

5 (PR for general law cities):
Do you support legislation to allow a general law city to adopt Choice Voting, Cumulative Voting, and/or Limited Voting by a vote of its people?

Extended Answers

Answer to Q1B (Warner S. Bloomberg, 3rd):
Yes, provided local entities may create additional protocols not inconsistent with state regulations.

Answer to Q3A (Warner S. Bloomberg, 3rd):
Yes, so long as the vote counts, at all levels, are reported and available for reviews and analysis.

Answer to Q3B (Warner S. Bloomberg, 3rd):
No. I support proportional allocation of California's Presidential electors.

Answer to Q4 (Warner S. Bloomberg, 3rd):
Yes, when adopted by the voters of the local district.

Additional comments from candidate Warner S. Bloomberg, 3rd:
The term "spoiler effect" in question 3 is a misnomer. Elections are not spoiled by multiple candidates. Elections are spoiled when there is no choice.

Generic answer from candidate John Campbell:

Thank you for sending me your candidate questionnaire. I appreciate your interest in my candidatcy for the Assembly in the 70th district.

I have already received a large number of questionnaires from a diverse group of organizations. If I honored all requests, I would spend more time answering questionnaires than I would meeting and talking with voters in my district. Therefore, in order to be fair to everyone, I have decided to decline all invitations to fill out questionnaires during the November, 2002 election campaign. While I wish I could complete the many questionnaires that have been sent to me, my schedule does not permit me to do so. However, as an incumbent, I welcome you to review my voting record as it most accurately represents my values and beliefs.

Additionally, I would be glad to meet and chat with you about my position on any issues of interest to your group. Please feel free to call me at (949)509-6537. Thank you.

Generic answer from candidate Joe Canciamilla:

Thank you for sending me a questionnaire from your organization requiesting my opinions on a variety of issues of concern to your membership.

I am choosing not to answer surveys requesting my opinion on issues this election season.

During the course of an issue or bill's legislative life I have found that many amendments or other modifications may occur which result in my position changing sometimes several times before a bill is actually before me for a vote. Most surveys do not allow for enough of a discussion of issues, especally those of a complex nature, to permit their full and complete analysis. For those organizations that use these questionnaires as tools for endorsements or contributions, I also believe that committing myself to a particular vote in advance of seeing the actual bill is inappropriate.

As a current member of the legislature, I believe that the best measure of my position on issues is to examine my voting record and, if you desire, to participate in a face-to-face discussion of the issues that may concern you.

I am more than willing to provide further information on particular bills or to participate in a more complete discussion of any issue that may be of particular interest to your organization.

Additional comments from candidate Robert W. Giedt:
I am fully supportive of electoral reform using any or all of the above methods!

Answer to Q2 (Jackie Goldberg):
Yes (allowing) not requiring is my preference. I support the right of each jurisdiction to make this decision.

Answer to Q3A (Jackie Goldberg):
- "Yes" for non-partisan

- Need more info on effect on partisan elections

Answer to Q3B (Jackie Goldberg):
Probably. I have not given it much thought - so I'd have to study the implications before making a final decision.

Answer to Q3A (Loni Hancock):
I am interested in exploring the idea.

Answer to Q3B (Loni Hancock):
I am interested in exploring the idea.

Answer to Q1A (Paul Koretz):
Probably - not sure.

Answer to Q4 (Paul Koretz):
I was personally responsible for LAUSD elections switching to districts, so I understand the problem. Not familiar enough with these solutions to commit, but likely to support.

Answer to Q1B (Robert Melsh):
Yes, this must come first.

Answer to Q3B (Robert Melsh):
No. The national parties need to approve this first.

Additional comments from candidate Matt Munson:
I'll co-sponsor any IRV bills.

Answer to Q1A (Jon Petersen):
Yes, except for unrelated equipment necessary for operation of the whole.

Answer to Q1B (Jon Petersen):
Yes, to a degree, but it should be up to the county overall.

Answer to Q3A (Jon Petersen):
Only if the elections offices have IRV capability.

Answer to Q3B (Jon Petersen):
If we ever get local electors, we may need it, but currently winner take all suffices.

Answer to Q1B (Bob Vondruska):
Yes! I would prefer the word "guidelines" over the word "regulations"! It would be the job of the Secretary of State to determine such guidelines.