CfER Candidate Survey Responses - Statewide Partisan Offices

This page lists responses to the Californians for Electoral Reform's survey of candidates for the statewide partisan offices 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).

GOVERNOR

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

SECRETARY OF STATE

CONTROLLER

TREASURER

ATTORNEY GENERAL

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

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

Additional comments from candidate Peter Miguel Camejo:
As you know, Greens have been fighting for IRV and PR for over 10 years!

Answer to Q1A (Gail K. Lightfoot):
What about equipment purchased with county funds?

Answer to Q1B (Gail K. Lightfoot):
Yes, although I think you would do a better job since you understand and support IRV.

Answer to Q2 (Gail K. Lightfoot):
Yes, since current election code has no provision for IRV.

Additional comments from candidate Jeanne-Marie Rosenmeier:
I am electoral reform working group co-chair for CA Greens. Working hard for IRV.

Additional comments from candidate Laura Wells:
I am very much in favor of IRV, proportional representation, choice and cumulative voting, PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE, election day voter registration and all other methods that will upgrade our democracy.