In the middle of a historic budget crisis, Santa Clara County is being forced to make painful choices. Public health clinics are bracing for staff reductions. Social workers are trying to do more with less. Even with the passage of Measure A, the county will have to do more with less because of the devastating effects of federal spending cuts.
Yet, while all of that is happening, we are spending millions of dollars on two elections to fill a single county office. The combined cost of the standalone special election for assessor and runoff was originally estimated at about $26 million.
Much of the cost for the Nov. 4 special election was subsequently offset by a state and another county measure on the same ballot. But county taxpayers will be stuck with the full cost for the Dec. 30 runoff.
Moreover, despite the cost, there’s likely to be little voter participation. Dec. 30 is not a date designed to produce robust civic engagement; it is a date that will produce low turnout reflecting the fact that voters are traveling, distracted or simply checked out.
This is an avoidable problem. And Santa Clara County already has a tool available to fix it: ranked choice voting (RCV) for county special elections.
RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no one wins an immediate majority, an instant runoff is conducted automatically during that same election by counting voters’ next choices. It ensures the winner earns majority support without requiring the county to run a second, expensive, stand-alone election two months later.
For off-cycle special elections, particularly those triggered by unexpected resignations or vacancies, RCV is a more responsible use of public money.
Implementing RCV for special elections is not theoretical. The county’s voting equipment already supports it. State law explicitly allows it. And county voters approved the concept more than 25 years ago, when they passed Measure F authorizing “instant runoff voting” when technology made it feasible.
Opponents sometimes argue that RCV would require new voter education. That is true. But compare that modest cost to the up to $13 million we are spending right now to hold a holiday-season runoff that few voters will even remember is happening.
At a time when county departments are cutting resources for those who inspect restaurants, protect abused children and respond to domestic violence, it is hard to justify spending millions on an avoidable second election.
We should not accept a system that costs more and engages fewer people. Special elections are already low-turnout events.
Adopting RCV for special elections is a targeted, fiscally responsible action that can be taken now to save millions of dollars in future special election costs. One election instead of two. Majority rule instead of holiday runoffs. Public money spent on essential services, not redundant ballot printing and staffing.
During a budget period when the county must decide between shortening clinic hours or suspending community health programs, the question practically answers itself: Why are we paying for two elections when one will do the job?
Recent history suggests this problem is not a one-off. In just the past two years, the city of San Jose has had to unexpectedly fill three separate City Council vacancies. With the governor’s race opening up and the prospect of congressional redistricting, it is reasonable to expect additional vacancies in county offices that could require special elections. Ranked choice voting offers a practical way to prepare for the vacancies we know are coming, without draining scarce public dollars each time one occurs.
Santa Clara County has the authority. The technology is ready. The Board of Supervisors should adopt ranked choice voting for special elections before we find ourselves sleepwalking into another costly, low-participation runoff.
David Newswanger, a retired pediatric anesthesiologist, is a California Ranked Voting Coalition volunteer coordinator for Sunnyvale and speaker bureau coordinator for Santa Clara County, and a member of the Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee.
Leave a Reply