Tag: Instant Runoff Voting

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

A Practical Case for IRV

Reginald Boyce (Photo: Facebook)

Van Turner, the two-term holder of the District 12 seat on the Shelby County Commission, a former commission chair, and one of the body’s most influential members, is term-limited and thus ineligible to run for re-election. Turner, who is also president of the Memphis chapter of the NAACP, has declared himself to be a likely candidate for mayor of Memphis in 2023 and, in the judgment of many observers, is a probable front-runner in the race to succeed Mayor Jim Strickland, who is himself term-limited.

Meanwhile, four candidates have successfully filed for election to the District 12 (southeast Memphis) commission seat, and all of them, at one point or another, had asked Turner for his support — and why shouldn’t they want the backing of the current, much-respected seat-holder?

Erika Sugarmon (Photo: Courtesy Erika Sugarmon)

At least two of them have been publicly rumored to have gained Turner’s support — a fact clearly demanding of some clarification. Which of the two — the Rev. Reginald Boyce, the well-regarded pastor of Riverside Missionary Baptist Church, or Erika Sugarmon, a teacher and voting-rights activist — actually has Turner’s endorsement?

The fact is, they both do. Early on, Boyce asked for, and got, a pledge of support from Turner, who offered him both verbal and financial backing. Then Sugarmon, member of a family renowned for its role in local civil rights history, filed closer to the deadline and reminded Turner of a tentative commitment he had made to her some months earlier.

It was a predicament familiar to many of those Shelby County citizens — in business and civil life in general, as well as in politics — who are asked to underwrite the electoral efforts of others and whose support, in races as close as the one in District 12 is said to be, can be all-important.

Turner decided that he couldn’t renounce the support he’d already offered Boyce, nor could he see himself turning Sugarmon away.

He determined that both candidates were equally deserving and is at present underwriting both their campaigns, verbally and financially. Moreover, he has kind words as well for the other two candidates in the race — David Walker, a former high school classmate of his, and James Bacchus, a retired principal who served at both Whitehaven High School and Hamilton High School. A fifth possible candidate, who ended up not filing, was Ronald Pope, with whom Turner also had good relations.

“It’s difficult when my friends end up running against each other,” says Turner, and his dilemma is, after all, similar to the one we all have when we look at a candidate list and have a hard time deciding which way to go with it. The fact is, the election roster of 2022 offers several such conundrums — races in which more than one candidate has impressive enough credentials to warrant a vote.

(And, yes, of course, there may be one or two races in which nobody seems to measure up.)

In any case, somebody has to win, and everybody can’t.

There are ways of mitigating the perplexities of choice, and one of them — ranked-choice voting — allows for ranking one’s preferences so as to acknowledge the ambiguities of choosing between alternatives and, collectively, to help resolve them. Our betters in the Tennessee General Assembly have just banned that process, though, taking away a tool that we voters of Shelby County had twice approved at the ballot box without much head-scratching at all.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Momentum for IRV

Photo: Jhaviv | Dreamstime.com

Last week’s administrative hearing in Nashville was the first step in enabling ranked-choice voting in Memphis.

The long-pending matter of ranked-choice voting — aka instant runoff voting (IRV) — may be resolved in time for the next Memphis city elections, set for October 2023. That was the word from well-known IRV advocate Steve Mulroy, one of several participants in an administrative hearing on the subject held in Nashville last week.

On Thursday, August 5th, state Elections Coordinator Mark Goins presided over the hearing in the state capitol. In his official capacity, Goins had previously determined that IRV was illegal under Tennessee election law and prevented its implementation in Memphis, despite three separate local voter referenda approving the process. Goins, who, ironically and unusually, took part in the procedure both as an adverse party and the final decision-maker at the administrative level, was represented by the state attorney general’s office.

Petitioners, including former and future City Council candidates Erika Sugarmon, Sam Goff, and John Marek, participated as challengers to Goins’ original decision and in the current determinative process. They were represented by Taylor Cates and William Irvine of the Burch, Porter & Johnson Memphis law firm, assisted by attorneys from the international Hogan Lovells law firm. University of Memphis law professor Mulroy represented additional intervenors, including former and future City Council candidate Britney Thornton and the Ranked Choice Tennessee organization (a pro-IRV advocacy group).

Yet another participant was attorney Allan Wade, representing the Memphis City Council, which has joined the state in seeking to block IRV implementation.

The administrative hearing is a necessary step before the matter can be appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. An administrative decision from last week’s process is expected within a few months, with a more definitive Chancery Court ruling expected a few months after that.

At last Thursday’s hearing, pro-IRV expert testimony was provided by George Gilbert, a former elections administrator in North Carolina and current associate of the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, a nationwide clearinghouse for Ranked Choice Voting, which allows voters to rank candidates on a ballot in order of preference, successively sampling these choices until a majority-winning candidate can be selected. (Ranked-choice voting was the method recently used by New York City in its primaries to elect a new mayor.)

Gilbert explained that it was technically feasible to implement IRV in Memphis, using either current Shelby County equipment, hand-marked paper ballots, or any other equipment Shelby County might obtain in the future. He also insisted that, under a proper administrative interpretation of the state’s election statutes and regulations, there was nothing illegal about doing IRV in Memphis.

Memphis voters approved IRV overwhelmingly by referendum in 2008, amending the Memphis City Charter to that effect. Currently, it applies to all City Council districts but not to citywide races like mayor or city court clerk. But IRV was not immediately implemented at least partly because the then Shelby County Election Administrator Richard Holden opined that the county’s voting machines could not handle IRV. His successor, current Election Administrator Linda Phillips, stated in 2017 that this opinion was incorrect and that the county’s extant machines could indeed handle IRV.

Phillips was set to implement it for the 2019 City Council election when Coordinator Goins instructed her not to, claiming that IRV violated state law. Incumbents on the Memphis City Council placed two different IRV repeal referenda on the November 2018 ballot. Memphis voters rejected both repeal efforts, indicating once again a willingness to see IRV elections in Memphis.

Petitioners and intervenors disputing Goins’ legal interpretation also protest the involvement of the Memphis City Council in the litigation. In their view, the anti-IRV perspective is adequately represented by the state. “The City Council should respect the will of the voters and stop trying to block something that Memphis voters voted for three times,” said Mulroy.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Nashville Judge Awards IRV a New Chance to Succeed

Instant Runoff Voting logo.

Nashville jurists — members of the Chancery Court there, especially — have been good to Memphis plaintiffs of late, and Tuesday saw another instance of that.

Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal reversed a prior decision by the Administrative Law Judge, a functionary of the Tennessee Secretary of state’s office, who had summarily dismissed, for alleged lack of legal standing, the plaintiffs’ petition in 2019 on behalf of several then City Council candidates as well as nd Ranked Choice Tennessee. The plaintiffs had sought to have Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) declared consistent with state election laws and implemented on the Memphis city election ballot that year.

The Memphis City Council  had rejected IRV as a ballot format, though the process, which allows for successive resamplings of votes cast until absolute majorities are obtained, had  been approved in several referenda by the city’s voters.

The Chancellor remanded the case back go the ALJ for review — not a final victory as such for the plaintiffs but a bona fide second chance.  Should the Administrative Law Judge rule against the IRV after review, the plaintiffs would then have the opportunity to appeal the case further within the legal system.

  All this was noted in a reaction to Moskal’s decision  by Steve  Mulroy, a University of Memphis law professor and former County Commissioner, who had represented several of the plaintiffs. Said Mulroy: “The litigation is by  no means over, but this is a significant step forward for us. We look forward to the day when a court rules on the merits of our claim, because we are confident that IRV is indeed legal under Tennessee law.  Memphis voters supported IRV in three different referenda in two elections, and have been waiting for 13 years for it to be implemented.”

Mulroy was also an attorney for plaintiffs in a previous case heard by another Nashville Chancellor, Ellen Hobbs Lyle, who granted a widening of Tennessee voters’ opportunity to apply for mail-in ballots last year in view of the ongoing pandemic. The Secretary of State’s office was on the resisting end of that case, as well

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Thing One, Thing Two

On November 14th, the citizens of two Memphis City Council districts will have an opportunity to finish up with the business of selecting their representatives to serve on the council. As grateful as we are that the current electoral system allows this opportunity to perfect the people’s will, we’ll say again, as we’ve said in the past, this is a lousy way to do it.

By the time that runoff election date rolls around, the always chancey Memphis weather will have had ample opportunity to turn sour on us, discouraging turnout, and it’s already a given that runoff elections are notoriously poorly attended even in the best of conditions.

We have no reason to expect otherwise for what amounts to judgment day for council Districts 1 and 7 — and an important judgment day at that. Depending on the outcome, there could be two council incumbents returned, with a disposition to continue the governing pattern of the past, or two new faces, those of candidates whose campaign rhetoric at least obliges them to consider serious change in the way city government does its business.

An even split between these prospects is also possible. Our concern does not necessarily lie with a commitment to either point of view or to any of the four candidates. What we worry about is the fact that the honest will of the people may not factor into the truncated totals of a runoff election — one in which the outcome could be decided by the weather or by the electorate’s lapsed attention, or, even in the best-case scenario, by the superiority of one campaign organization or another in forcing their cadres to the polls.

The solution to the runoff dilemma is no secret: It is the election process known alternately as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting. This process has twice been approved by a large majority of Memphis voters — in a 2008 referendum and in another one in 2018. The process has so far been sabotaged by holdover council members who refuse to authorize the county Election Coordinator to employ it, and by state election authorities, who have intervened against its use. Come to think of it, that’s another good argument in favor of the new faces on the runoff ballot.

Regardless of what happens on November 14th, an event scheduled for the previous day, Wednesday, November 13th, also will have serious import for Memphis’ political future. On that date, retired Circuit Court Judge William B. Acree of Jackson convenes a hearing in Memphis to decide on the ultimate fate of bogus sample ballots that falsely claim to represent the endorsement choices of local political parties. For several election cycles, local entrepreneurs have been in the habit of fobbing off these travesties to local voters at election time.

The scandal is that an outside judge had to be called in to hear the case, since the judges of Shelby County have been as guilty as any other candidates in paying their way onto these fraudulent ballots and thus had to recuse themselves. It is for their sake and ours that we hope Judge Acree will see fit to decree an end to this fraud against democracy.

Categories
News News Blog

Hearing Could Expedite Instant Runoff Voting Decision

Proponents of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) want the voting system in place for the upcoming October elections but they say a September hearing set on the matter will not allow for it.

In 2008 and in 2018, Memphis voters approved IRV. The system prevents runoff elections among top candidates that are held after typical, city-wide voting days. This, proponents say, allows elections here to be won by a sliver of Memphis voters and disenfranchises voters who may find it hard to get themselves to the polls.

Tennessee Election Coordinator Mark Goins said after the 2018 elections here that IRV does not comply with state law and that IRV could not be implemented here this year. That opinion is being contested in a separate case.

City council hopefuls Erika Sugarmon, John Marek, and Sam Goff filed a lawsuit in May to ensure the method was in place for the October 3rd elections here, in which every Memphis City Council seat is open.

However, the case is contested and the next hearing on the matter is set for September 10th, according to court papers. Those proponents say that timeline will not allow IRV to be ready for the October elections.
Davidson County Chancery Court

Chancellor Lyle

Last week, Sugarmon, Marek, and Goff pushed for an expedited hearing. So, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle set a hearing on the matter in her courtroom for Wednesday, June 26th. That hearing may yield a decision that will govern IRV implementation for the October 3rd election.

[pdf-1]

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Mulroy to Read from New Book on Election Reform

Author, attorney, and founding father cosplayer, Steve Mulroy

Former Counrty Commissioner and mayoral candidate Steve Mulroy (here rocking a period wig and mugging the camera) is not a Founding Father. He just plays one (James Wilson, by name) in the  Tony-winning musical, 1776, now playing at Theatre Memphis though March 31. Mulroy, whose day job is that of law professor at the University of Memphis, is also the author of Unskewing the System: Rethinking U.S. Election Law, which he will read from and discuss at Novel Bookstore on Tuesday at 6 p.m.

As the title suggests, he book treats any number of proposals — including Instant Runoff Voting — for making the American electoral system fairer and more accessible.

Attendees will have the opportunity to acquire a volume by means of a special author’s discount.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Cohen, Lowery Hit Council Anti-IRV Ad Campaign as “Deceptive”

Lowery (l), Cohen

Two public officials backing the local opposition to Memphis City Council-backed referenda on the election ballot have charged that “the ‘public education’ campaign” endowed by the city council with $40,000 in taxpayer funds “is actually a one-sided advocacy campaign designed to influence rather than educate.”

In a press release, U.S. Representative Steve Cohen of the Memphis-based 9th Congressional district and former council chair Myron Lowery joined with the Save IRV Memphis campaign to contend that a series of ads advocating the repeal of Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting) purport to be originated by a private PAC but are actually the products of the Carter Malone Group, a local advertising and PR agency the council has contracted with.

“They shouldn’t be using our tax dollars to fund a Vote Yes campaign in the first place, but if they do, they should disclose on every ad, email, and piece of literature that tax dollars are paying for it,” said Congressman Steve Cohen. “And they certainly shouldn’t imply that it’s all coming from a private group.”

The ads — in both audio and video format — are embedded in an email sent out from “bmalone@cmgpr.com,” the Carter Malone Group’s email address, and, as the press release notes, “explicitly push a ‘Vote yes’ message in clear advocacy, without neutral public education.” Deidre Malone, who heads the Carter Malone agency, recently confirmed that the council had asked her to handle the council’s paid publicity campaign on behalf of three ballot referenda, including the one that would repeal IRV.

In the wake of Chancellor Jim Kyle’s decision last week not to issue an injunction against the use of public funding for a one-sided advocacy campaign, Council Attorney Allan Wade used the terms “influence” and “educate” interchangeably in discussing the Council’s plans with reporters.

In the required disclaimer as to the source of their funding, the ads list “Diversity PAC,” a private political action committee — a contention that Cohen, Lowery, and the Save IRV Campaign Memphis committee all insist is purposely misleading. “The voters deserve to know when they’re being lobbied by their own money,” Lowery said. “Anything less than full disclosure is downright deceptive.”

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Vote No on All Three November Election Referenda

We have said all this before, but if there is one maxim regarding the process of communication worth trusting, it is that nothing benefits a message like repetition. This is as valid about falsehoods as it is about truths. Witness only the role of rote in the command psychology of ruling entities, whether fictional, as in George Orwell’s classic dystopian epic, 1984, or in reality, as in “Make America Great Again.”

It helps to repeat positive messages, too, and, while the Flyer has, from its beginning, held to a policy of non-endorsement of candidates at election time, we have made no secret of our attitude toward public policies that we deem of crucial importance to our readership.

Ed Ford

We have, for example, deplored the apparently organized reluctance of three Memphis City Council members, elected to other positions in Shelby County government on August 2nd, to resign their council seats so as to permit their constituents, via a call for special election, to have a direct voice in their replacement. The train has left the station on that one — thanks to inaction from the newly installed Probate Court clerk Bill Morrison, Juvenile Court clerk Janis Fullilove, and Shelby County Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr. — leaving it to the other 10 members of the council, not the electorate, to choose their successors.

Actually, in one case there may be a silver lining of sorts. The chairman of the Shelby County Commission, Van Turner, has hit upon the expedient of asking Commissioner/Councilman Ford to serve as a kind of liaison between the two bodies for the next several weeks, and Ford, whose abilities we do not doubt, has apparently tackled the obligation with some industry and in good faith, helping to arrange agreed-upon solutions to issues of joint city/county jurisdiction. In any case, the matter is beyond our control.

We can be somewhat more pro-active about three issues on the November 6th ballot, advising that, if enacted, they would fill a void somewhere between the mischievous and the venal. We refer to three referenda before city voters — one being a re-vote on the process called Ranked Choice Voting (alternately: Instant Runoff Voting); another eliminating runoff voting altogether; and a third, establishing term limits for the council and mayor at three four-year terms, in lieu of the current two-term limit.

All three, we think, either fail to advance the public interest, refute the public will, or are designed to be incumbent-friendly in a way that discourages free choice by the electorate. Or all of the above. The people have already voted, and by resounding margins, to establish Ranked Choice Voting (which eliminates the need for runoffs but allows for a rational and fair way to designate election winners in such cases), and the County Election Administrator has already set up the machinery for RCV in the 2019 city election. And a previous referendum limiting council members to two terms passed handily; the proposed referendum would actually expand council terms.

A “no” vote on all three referenda is the only way to affirm the freely offered judgment of the electorate, already rendered.

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Termite Inspection

When you’re scanning the sky for incoming artillery, you don’t always notice the termites chewing away at the beams in your basement.

That’s another way of saying, when you’re obsessed with the latest episodes of King Don Un’s reality show up in D.C., you sometimes forget to pay attention to what’s happening in your old home town. Specifically, what’s going on with the Memphis City Council and with certain members who are running for other offices to be decided in the upcoming August 2nd election.

I’m generally in favor of term limits, as are most local voters, judging from the fact that they’ve voted in two-term limits for most county offices and for the Shelby County Commission and, in 2008, voted by a three-to-one margin to limit the Memphis City Council to two terms. In that same election, Memphians voted by a similar margin to institute Instant Runoff Voting, which allows voters to rank their choices and by so doing, eliminate expensive runoff elections.

One perhaps unforseen result of term limits has been the ongoing recycling of various office-holders from one county job to another. Term-limited out of the county clerk’s office? Just run for county assessor or Juvenile Court clerk or trustee or register of deeds. Anyone can register a deed, right? The roles change, but the cast of characters remains the same. It’s a hassle to have to find a new public office to run for every eight years. Such a drag.

This year, three city council members — Edmund Ford, Bill Morrison, and Janis Fullilove — are candidates for the county commission, Probate Court clerk, and Juvenile Court clerk, respectively. If any or all of the three wins their prospective new offices, a pivotal question arises: How long will they will hold on to their council seats before resigning them? By law, they can wait 90 days. If they do, it complicates an already complicated matter.

Memphis City Ordinance #1852 reads, “on any vacancy occurring in the Council … a successor shall be elected to fill out the remainder of the term. … That special municipal election shall be held on the date of the next August or November election.” If any these council members are elected to another office on August 2nd and hold onto their council seat for 90 days, a November election for those seats becomes nearly impossible.

Further muddying the water is the fact that city council Chairman Berlin Boyd and council Attorney Allan Wade have cited an as-yet-unseen (and perhaps nonexistent?) legal memo that states that the next council election can’t be held until next August. If that decision prevails, then any vacant council seats would be filled via appointment by the current council, thereby depriving those represented by said councilmembers the right to decide who represents them.

The sad fact is, this city council seems quite willing to ignore the will of Memphis voters. In January, council members voted to put a referendum on the November ballot to allow voters to give them three terms instead of two. They have also managed to avoid implementing the Instant Runoff System approved by city voters in 2008 and have put a couple of confusing IRV referendums on the November ballot to thwart or reverse that decision.

Bottom line, if the council gets its way: Citizens in the three possibly affected districts won’t get to vote on who represents them for more than a year. But, as a consolation prize, this November, we will all get a chance to give them three terms instead of two. Tough call.

Frankly, I think it’s time we go to the basement and check the beams. Something’s chewing away down there.

Editor’s note: The house pictured on last week’s cover was not the house being objected to by the Cooper-Young couple quoted in the cover story. Thanks to gracious home-owner Monica Braun, who pointed out the possibly misleading image.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Memphis City Council Hijinks?

The Memphis City Council is under attack from various disenchanted citizens regarding several alleged pro-incumbent referenda it voted onto the November ballot — one that would counter the council’s current two-term limit for members, another that would negate the Shelby County Election Commission’s plans for ranked choice voting (RCV) in the 2019 city election, and another that would abolish all runoff elections. Now new scrutiny is arising on the question of how and when three council members might be replaced should they win other elected positions they are seeking in the August county general election.

Janis Fullilove

The three members are Janis Fullilove, Democratic nominee for Juvenile Court clerk; Bill Morrison, Democratic nominee for Probate Court clerk; and Edmund Ford, Democratic candidate for the Shelby County Commission’s District 9 position. All are generally favored to win, and all have been urged by a citizens’ group to resign their council positions immediately following the August outcome.

Members of the citizens’ group fear that the three council members, if victorious in their contests, might hold on to their council seats for an additional three months, as is apparently permitted by a literal interpretation of the city charter, thereby overlapping with their new county duties (and double-dipping financially).Most important from the protesters’ point of view, retention of the council seats for that long would stretch the calendar to the point that special elections could not be called for the forthcoming November ballot and would mandate the departing members’ replacement by an appointment process, in which case the replacements named would serve through the city election of 2019.

Edmund Ford Jr.

The challenging citizens fear that a current council majority will contrive to appoint new members of the same stripe, end-running other options that might surface in a special election.

So far, none of the three council members has committed to a course of action on a time for resignation. Berlin Boyd, the current council chair, and Allan Wade, the council’s attorney, insist that the critics have misread the charter and that special elections to replace departing council members can only take place in August — thereby nullifying the prospect of November elections for the three seats and making the protesters’ wishes moot.

The Rev. Earle Fisher and other citizens seeking a commitment for a timely withdrawal by the departing incumbents, should they win, cite charter language specifically authorizing replacement elections in either August or November.

Regardless of who’s right about charter requirements, the protesting citizens’ point is well taken: The appointment process has become wholly predictable, with a dominant council faction choosing replacements who, though they may be admirably skilled and bastions of integrity, have been suggested by well-placed supporters of the current majority and not subjected to any real public vetting via the election process.

The video archives of last week’s council meeting show that, after four speakers had made their case and had been basically blown off by Boyd, Wade apparently engaged the speakers in an exchange of taunts, somewhat off-mic. We think the protesters have a respectable case to make and should be listened to.