HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/12/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Charter Commission - RegularAGENDA
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 6, 2017
5:30 p.m. – City Hall, Community Room
The mission of the Charter Commission is to evaluate and propose changes which are
warranted in the city Home Rule Charter as provided by State Statute. Home Rule Charters
are, in effect local constitutions passed by local voters and cannot conflict with state laws.
Commissioners are appointed by the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court and
serve on a volunteer basis. (Commissioners are not appointed by City Council.) Staff
provides assistance to prepare agendas and performs other administrative duties.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call & Attendance
a.Requests for Excused Absences
3. Approval of Minutes – October 24, 2017 Charter Commission Meeting
4. Old Business
a.Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign
Finance Contribution Limits
5. New Business
6. Future Meetings
7. Communications
a.Ranked Choice Voting Information from League of Women Voters
b. Communication received from Diane Steen-Hinderlie
8. Adjourn
For more information or questions regarding this agenda,
please contact Melissa Kennedy at 952- 928-2840
or Chair Sara Maaske at smaaske@outlook.com
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call Administrative Services at 952-924-2525.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 24, 2017
6:00 p.m. – Community Room, City Hall
1. Call to Order
Chair Maaske called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call and Attendance
Members Present: Maren Anderson, JC Beckstrand, Jim Brimeyer, Gary Carlson, Jim de
Lambert, Terry Dwyer, David Dyer, Matthew Flory, Ken Gothberg, Sara Maaske, Andrew Rose,
Erin Smith, and Henry Solmer.
Members Absent: Lynne Carper (absence excused), Ron Jarvi, Jr.
Others Present: Nancy Deno (Deputy City Manager/HR Director), Soren Mattick (City Attorney),
and Melissa Kennedy (City Clerk)
New members Andrew Rose and Erin Smith introduced themselves to the commission.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. March 21, 2017 Charter Commission Meeting
It was moved by Commissioner Brimeyer, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to approve the minutes
of March 21, 2017. The motion passed 13-0.
4. Old Business
a. Update on Approved Charter Amendment Eliminating Municipal Primary
Elections and Changing Candidate Filing Requirements
Ms. Kennedy informed the commission that the previously approved Charter amendment took
effect on August 16, 2017. New copies of the City Charter were provided to each commissioner
and the published version on the city website was also updated.
5. New Business
a. Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign
Finance Contribution Limits
Chair Maaske asked staff to provide an overview of the purpose of the meeting and the request
from the City Council.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the City Council had discussed the topic of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
numerous times since 2006. She noted that the staff reports and minutes from the Council’s
previous discussions were provided in the Charter Commission’s agenda packet at the request of
Chair Maaske. She explained on October 2, 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution asking the
Charter Commission to study and make a recommendation as to whether the Charter should be
amended to provide for the use of RCV to elect candidates to the City Council beginning with the
2019 election, and whether the Charter should be amended to change campaign finance
contribution limits to match the limits set forth in statute.
DRAFT
Charter Commission Minutes -2- October 24, 2017
Mr. Mattick stated the questions before the Charter Commission were policy questions. He
explained the questions at this time are not related to how RCV would be administered, but rather
whether or not the City should implement RCV as the method by which candidates would be
elected to the city council. He noted that statute allows Charter cities the option to implement an
alternative voting method by amending the Charter, whereas statutory cities and school districts
do not currently have the same option.
Ms. Kennedy asked Mr. Mattick to review the Charter amendment process outlined in statute.
Mr. Mattick explained the City Council specifically asked the Charter Commission to consider
amending the Charter according to the process outlined in M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7. He noted that
this process required a positive recommendation of at least eight (8) members of the Charter
Commission and an ordinance to amend the Charter would require a unanimous vote of all 7
councilmembers. He stated under this statute an ordinance to amend the Charter, even if approved
by all 7 members of the Council, would not take effect until 90 days after passage and publication.
Within the first 60 days of that 90 day period, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance
may be filed with the city clerk. If the requisite petition is filed within that period, the ordinance
would not take effect until approved by the voters. He noted the Council would also have the
option, at that point, to choose not to move forward with the ordinance to amend the Charter.
Commissioner Dyer asked if the Charter Commission could make a recommendation to the City
Council to put the question on a ballot.
Mr. Mattick stated the commission could make such a recommendation. He explained the Council
would then vote on the recommendation as proposed by the Charter Commission.
Chair Maaske suggested splitting the two amendments and to focus the first part of the discussion
on the proposed amendment related to RCV. She stated it would be helpful to hear each
commissioner’s thoughts and questions on the RCV amendment to get an idea of where the
commission was at and to figure out a plan for how to move forward.
Commissioner de Lambert questioned if something had changed related to statutory authority since
the first time this topic was discussed.
Mr. Mattick stated he didn’t know that anything had changed per se, but did note that since that
time two cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, have implemented and used RCV in their municipal
elections. He added that the constitutionality of RCV was challenged and the State Supreme Court
upheld its use.
Commissioner Brimeyer stated he is generally supportive of RCV but feels it is too early to make
a decision as further discussion is needed. He noted he did not want to see a scenario in which the
City could potentially elect a Mayor receiving less than 50% of the vote. He explained he would
not be in favor of a referendum because he felt they should be limited to issues related to finances
and the Council is elected to make policy decisions. He thinks it would be very difficult to educate
and inform voters on the concept of RCV in order to get them prepared to vote on the question.
He added he would like to see some draft language of the proposed Charter amendment.
Mr. Mattick stated a draft amendment could be put together fairly easily. He noted that the Charter
amendment would only provide for the use of RCV and the rules and procedures related to election
administration would be adopted by an ordinance requiring a simple majority vote of the Council.
DRAFT
Charter Commission Minutes -3- October 24, 2017
Commissioner Gothberg stated that RCV is a solution looking for a problem and he does not think
the concept is an all-encompassing solution. He explained the city does not know what the impact
will be yet of eliminating the primary because the new format will not be used until 2019. He
noted it would be a big mistake to not send the question to the voters if the city wants to pursue
RCV.
Commissioner Dyer stated he appreciates the concept of RCV but is not sure if a change is
necessary because he hasn’t seen a need and does not understand what the actual problem is that
the city is trying to address. He agreed that the decision should be up to the voters because it
affects their ability to vote and the way in which they elect their representatives.
Commissioner Flory stated he did not have a problem with RCV, but felt strongly that the question
should go to the public. He noted that civic engagement is an extreme source of pride in St. Louis
Park and residents appreciate a robust public process. He also expressed concern that having
multiple voting methods on the same ballot may be confusing for voters.
Commissioner Anderson stated she would like more information on experiences in other cities that
have used RCV, both successes and failures.
Commissioner Dwyer stated he supports the concept of RCV but does not feel that there is enough
data available to truly make a determination as to whether or not cities that use RCV actually
realize the outcomes they seek. He added until the method is more widely used people will always
be chasing a sufficient sample size of data to really evaluate the effectiveness of RCV. He
explained he felt the decision should be made by the City Council with a robust public process
because it is hard for people to educate themselves on ballot questions.
Commissioner Rose stated civic engagement is a big component of this question and if a change
is made a lot of education would be required up front, but over time people adapt to change. He
noted that he is in favor of seeking more technical and process improvements to help simplify the
administration of a RCV election. He supports moving forward and would also be ok with a
referendum if necessary.
Commissioner Beckstrand echoed Commissioner Gothberg’s sentiment that RCV is a solution
looking for a problem. He stated he looked at the question from many different angles and spoke
with election officials from Ramsey County, and had a hard time finding something that was a
tipping point that would require a change of this magnitude. He encouraged his colleagues not to
underestimate the importance of voter and election judge education and the undertaking that would
be for staff. He noted that although he is not opposed to the concept, he is not necessarily in favor
of making a change unless there is a strong reason to do so.
Commissioner Carlson stated he supports the concept of RCV in general and feels comfortable
letting the City Council make the decision given that there is an option for a reverse referendum
process included in M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7.
Commissioner de Lambert explained that he is open to considering the change and felt the request
from the Council was reasonable. He stated he is not thrilled with the election system as a whole
in the United States and he was in favor of at least making RCV an option.
DRAFT
Charter Commission Minutes -4- October 24, 2017
Commissioner Solmer stated he is open to the concept of implementing RCV but felt strongly that
the issue should not go to a referendum. He is in favor of gathering input from the public, but felt
the decision should be made by the Council.
Commissioner Smith stated she is in favor of RCV and does not like being limited to one choice
if there is a strong pool candidates. She added she struggles with the idea of a referendum because
the issue is not monetary and a lot of voters are uneducated when they go to the polls.
Chair Maaske explained her main concern is that there be a robust public process before a decision
is made. She expressed concern that the only public input was at the public hearing for the Charter
amendment to eliminate the Primary, and she does not feel that the public at large has had an
opportunity to be heard. She stated she is also unclear what the problem is that we are trying to
solve. The no Primary system has yet to be tested in St. Louis Park and she would like to see the
effects of that amendment and the increase in the number of signatures on a nominating petition.
She stated she is not sure that implementing RCV will result in more candidates or diversified
representation. She suggested that the Charter Commission outline the process they would like to
use to be able to form a recommendation for Council and present their questions to staff if
additional information is needed. She noted both Minneapolis and Duluth appointed a citizen task
force to independently study RCV and provide a recommendation to the Council, and both ended
up as questions on a ballot. She added she still has a number of questions she would like staff to
research.
1. What are the types of elections that are run in the Hennepin County cities that currently do
not have Primary elections? Are they all at-large seats? Do they elect the top vote getters
in one race to fill multiple seats?
2. Provide a rough cost estimate of the administrative costs related to the implementation and
administration of an RCV election.
3. Is there a study or analysis of campaign spending has changed in Minneapolis or St. Paul
elections since the implementation of RCV?
4. Have there been any studies related to incumbents and how often incumbents win both in
St. Louis Park and in cities where RCV is used?
Commissioner Beckstrand stated he would like a better understanding of any unintended
consequences of switching to RCV.
Ms. Kennedy explained that the city has to administer elections regardless of the process selected
and the Charter Commission’s decision should not be based solely on administrative factors
because staff will be prepared and will have the resources in place to run an election no matter
what voting method is used.
Commissioner Gothberg stated he would like staff to provide more information on the following:
1. Why did the ballot question fail in Duluth? What were the opinions of voters on that
process and ballot measure?
2. Why has RCV been repealed in other cities in the United States?
Ms. Kennedy reviewed the questions that were posed and stated staff would make every effort to
find the information, although some of the questions may be difficult to answer if no data exists.
DRAFT
Charter Commission Minutes -5- October 24, 2017
Ms. Deno reminded the Commission that the City Council had gone through their process and is
asking the Charter Commission for a recommendation. She noted the Commission could not
necessarily tell the City Council to undertake a separate public process.
The commissioners agreed that the topic of public process should be discussed at the next meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg, seconded by Commissioner Beckstrand, to direct staff
to return with additional information in response to the questions raised by the Commission
related to Ranked Choice Voting, to prepare a draft Charter amendment for review, and to
schedule a follow-up meeting for additional discussion. The motion passed 13-0.
Chair Maaske asked for further explanation of the proposed amendment related to campaign
finance contribution limits.
Mr. Mattick explained that Section 12.04 of the City Charter limits campaign contributions to $250
per year and State statute limits campaign contributions to $600 in an election year. He stated
during the 2017 municipal election cycle, staff received several questions regarding this topic and
he was asked to provide an opinion as to which limit should govern campaign contributions in St.
Louis Park. In this instance he provided the opinion that the statute should govern and a candidate
may accept contributions up to $600 in an election year. He noted the primary reason for his
opinion is that the when adopting M.S. 211A.12, the Legislature specifically stated that provisions
of that section should supersede any home rule charter. He added that M.S. 211A.12 only
addresses campaign contribution limits, and the statute does not apply to other provisions of the
Charter.
Ms. Kennedy explained the City Council discussed this discrepancy and thought it would be best
for the Charter Commission to consider an amendment that would eliminate the conflict and
eliminate confusion for candidates in future elections.
Commissioner Dwyer asked if the commission should consider amending any of the other
provisions in the Charter related to campaign finance.
Mr. Mattick stated the conflict was specifically related to Section 12.04, Subd. 1, but noted he
would review again to ensure no other changes should be considered.
Commissioner Dwyer asked if the recommendation was to eliminate the language altogether or to
change the limits to match what is set forth in statute.
Mr. Mattick stated the safest option would be to simply reference the statute so if the limits were
to change in the future another Charter amendment would not be required.
The consensus of the Commission was to reference M.S. 211A.12 and the limits as defined.
Mr. Mattick stated he would prepare a draft amendment for consideration at the next meeting.
6. Future Meetings
The Charter Commission scheduled their next meeting for December 6, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. The
meeting will be held in the Westwood Conference Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall.
DRAFT
Charter Commission Minutes -6- October 24, 2017
7. Communications - None
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Flory, to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed 13-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
DRAFT
Charter Commission
Meeting Date: December 6, 2017
Agenda Item: 4a
TITLE:
Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign
Finance Contribution Limits
On October 24, 2017 the Charter Commission met to discuss a request received from the City
Council that, pursuant to M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7, the Charter Commission study and make
recommendations regarding two possible Charter amendments.
The first council directive is asking the Charter Commission to study and make a
recommendation as to whether the City’s Charter should or should not be amended to
provide for the use of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in municipal elections.
The second council directive is asking the Charter Commission to study and make a
recommendation on amending the City’s Charter provisions related to campaign finance
contribution limits.
Following discussion by the Charter Commission, staff was directed to prepare a draft Charter
amendment for review at the next meeting and to provide additional information, to the extent it
is available, on the following questions:
What are the types of elections that are run in other Hennepin County cities that do not
have Primary elections? Are they all at-large seats? Do they elect the top vote getters in
one race to fill multiple seats?
Provide a rough cost estimate of the administrative costs related to the implementation
and administration of an RCV election.
Is there a study or analysis of how campaign spending has changed in Minneapolis or St.
Paul since the implementation of RCV?
Have there been any studies related to incumbents and how often incumbents win in St.
Louis Park and in cities where RCV is used?
Why did the ballot question related to RCV fail in Duluth? What were the opinions of
voters on that process and ballot measure?
Why has RCV been repealed in other cities in the United States?
Additionally, the Charter Commission requested that the City Attorney provide draft language
related to campaign finance contribution limits that would reflect what is allowed by state law.
The City Attorney will again be in attendance at the meeting to answer questions regarding the
draft amendments and to provide guidance regarding the statutory process to amend the Charter.
Attachments: Discussion
Draft of Proposed Charter Amendments
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Charter Commission Meeting of December 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a.) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits
DISCUSSION
What are the types of elections that are run in other Hennepin County cities that do not have
Primary elections? Are they all at-large seats? Do they elect the top vote getters in one race to
fill multiple seats?
Larger cities in Hennepin County that do not have Primary elections:
City Odd/Even Year Council Composition Ballot Style
Eden Prairie Even Year Mayor – 4 year term
4 At-large Council
(4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Edina Even Year Mayor – 4 year term
4 At-large Council
(4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Excelsior Even Year Mayor – 2 year term
4 At-large Council
( 4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Golden Valley Odd Year Mayor – 4 year term
4 At-large Council
(4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Hopkins Odd Year Mayor – 2 year term
4 At-large Council
( 4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Maple Grove Even Year Mayor – 4 year term
4 At-large Council
(4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Plymouth Even Year Mayor – 4 year term
2 - At-large Council
4 – Ward Council
(4 year terms each)
Separate Race for Each
Office on the ballot;
“Vote for One”
Orono Even Year Mayor – 2 year term
4 At-large Council
( 4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Osseo Even Year Mayor – 2 year term
4 At-large Council
( 4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Wayzata Even Year Mayor – 4 year term
4 At-large Council
(4 year terms each)
1 race on the ballot
“Councilmember Elect 2”
Top vote getters win seats
Provide a rough cost estimate of the administrative costs related to the implementation and
administration of an RCV election.
The costs that may be associated with the implementation and administration of an RCV
could vary widely based on the direction provided by the city council related to the
development of the rules and procedures for administration of an election itself. The
costs are also dependent on how the method itself would ultimately be adopted – via
ordinance amendment by the council or via referendum by voters. Because so many
factors remain undecided, conservative cost estimates were provided and remain very
preliminary.
Charter Commission Meeting of December 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a.) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits
These are the major areas that would require the most resources:
Legal costs - $10-15,000
Voter outreach and education - $25,000
Election judge training - $10-15,000
Election materials and supplies for use in precincts - $10,000
Additional elections staff in Clerk’s office - $20-$30,000
Post-election survey - $25-30,000
Independent audit firm to evaluate counting method - $15,000
Is there a study or analysis of how campaign spending has changed in Minneapolis or St. Paul
since the implementation of RCV?
Staff was unable to find any information that specifically addressed this question.
Have there been any studies related to incumbents and how often incumbents win in St. Louis
Park and in cities where RCV is used?
Staff was unable to find any information that specifically addressed this question in
municipal elections. The chart below details the election results in St. Louis Park for the
last (6) municipal elections.
Year Races Candidates Winners
2017 Councilmember Ward 1
Councilmember Ward 2
Councilmember Ward 3
Councilmember Ward 4
Margaret Rog, Brian Shekleton
Anne Mavity*, Noelle Racette
Rachel Harris, Jim Leuthner
Tim Brausen*
Margaret Rog
Anne Mavity
Rachel Harris
Tim Brausen
2015 Mayor
At-Large A
At-Large B
Conrad Segal, Jake Spano
Steve Hallfin
Sara Maaske, Thom Miller
Jake Spano
Steve Hallfin
Thom Miller
2013 Councilmember Ward 1
Councilmember Ward 2
Councilmember Ward 3
Councilmember Ward 4
Sue Sanger*
Anne Mavity*
Gregg Lindberg, Sue Santa*
Tim Brausen, Bill Theobald
Sue Sanger
Anne Mavity
Gregg Lindberg
Tim Brausen
2011 Mayor
At-Large A
At-Large B
Jeff Jacobs*
Steve Hallfin, Justin Kaufman
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jake Spano
Jeff Jacobs
Steve Hallfin
Jake Spano
2009 Councilmember Ward 1
Councilmember Ward 2
Councilmember Ward 3
Councilmember Ward 4
Sue Sanger*
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Anne Mavity
Sue Santa
Julia Ross, Bill Theobald
Sue Sanger
Anne Mavity
Sue Santa
Julia Ross
2007 Mayor
At-Large A
At-Large B
Jeff Jacobs*
Paul Omodt*
Phil Finkelstein*
Jeff Jacobs
Paul Omodt
Phil Finkelstein
Note: * indicates that candidate was the incumbent for that office.
Charter Commission Meeting of December 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a.) Page 4
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits
Why did the ballot question related to RCV fail in Duluth? What were the opinions of voters on
that process and ballot measure?
Staff contacted the City of Duluth and the response we received was as follows: “it is
difficult to say why any specific ballot measure is not passed by voters. For this
particular question 15,564 “no” votes were cast and 5,271 “yes” votes were cast”.
Why has RCV been repealed in other cities in the United States?
Aspen, Colorado (population 6,658) – in a mail-only election in November of 2009, by a
margin of six votes, voters opted to eliminate ranking city council and mayoral
candidates by preference on the municipal election ballot. The City of Aspen first used
IRV in a municipal election in May of 2009. The specific IRV method used was the first
in the country to incorporate multiple candidates for multiple seats. In response to
concerns raised by some elected officials and residents following the May election the
council put a question on the November 2009 ballot.
In November of 2010 the city council put another question on the ballot to officially
amend the Charter and repeal the use of IRV for municipal elections and return to the
original runoff system that had been used prior to the 2009 election cycle. The ballot
measure passed with 65% of the vote in favor of repealing IRV.
Burlington, Vermont (population 42,417) - the city approved IRV for use in mayoral
elections in 2005. In 2009 IRV was used in the mayoral election for the second time.
Following the 2009 election, a group of Burlington residents submitted a petition
requesting that a question be placed on the ballot in 2010 to repeal the use of IRV and
revert to the system previously used in which a simple plurality (40%) is required to win.
If no candidate reaches the 40% threshold. A special runoff between the top two
candidates is then held 30 days later. In 2010 the ballot question to repeal IRV passed by
a vote of 52% to 48%. In 2011 an initiative to increase the winning threshold from 40%
plurality to a 50% majority failed.
Charter Commission Meeting of December 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a.) Page 5
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits
Draft of Proposed Charter Amendments
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-_________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CHARTER
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 the Charter Commission has
recommended to the City Council that the Charter be amended as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 provides that upon recommendation of the
Charter Commission the City Council may enact a Charter Amendment by ordinance.
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4 of the City Charter is amended by adding Section 4.08 to provide:
Section 4.08.Voting method.
The voters elect the City's elected officers by single transferable voting (also known as
"ranked-choice voting" or "instant-runoff voting"). The City Council must provide by ordinance
the method of counting the votes and of breaking a tie.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on ______________, 2017.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2017, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
Public Hearing
First Reading
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council
________________________________ ____________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Charter Commission Meeting of December 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a.) Page 6
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-_________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CHARTER
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 the Charter Commission has
recommended to the City Council that the Charter be amended as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 provides that upon recommendation of the
Charter Commission the City Council may enact a Charter Amendment by ordinance.
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 12.04 of the City Charter is amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 12.04. Contributions.
(1) A candidate or personal campaign committee may not accept aggregate contributions made by an
individual or committee in excess of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) in any year the
contribution limits provided for in Minnesota Statutes Section 211A.12.
(2) Every person who receives a contribution or loan for a personal campaign committee shall, on
demand of the treasurer, and in any event, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the
contribution or loan, furnish the treasurer with the name and, if known, address of the contributor
or lender, the amount contributed or loaned and the date of receipt.
(3) No anonymous contributions in excess of twenty dollars ($20.00) or any anonymous
contributions aggregating in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) in any calendar year shall be
retained by the personal campaign committee, but shall be forwarded to the City Clerk and
deposited to the general fund of the City. This subdivision shall not apply to anonymous
contributions aggregating in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) arising from fund raising
sales, where in consideration of a contribution or contributions, a person receives any tangible
goods whose value has a reasonable relationship to the contribution.
(4) All contributions of fifty dollars ($50.00) or more shall be made by check, bank draft or money
order.
(5) All monetary contributions received by or on behalf of any candidate or personal
campaign committee shall be deposited within fourteen (14) days after receipt in an
account designated "campaign fund of (name of personal campaign committee)."
SECTION . This Ordinance shall take effect on ______________, 2017.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2017, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
Charter Commission Meeting of December 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a.) Page 7
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits
Public Hearing
First Reading
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council
________________________________ ____________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Date: November 27, 2017
To: St. Louis Park Charter Commission
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting for St. Louis Park
From: Deb Brinkman, LWV St. Louis Park
Dear Charter Commission Members
Election Reform is a top priority with The League of Women Voters. The League has launched nationwide initiatives
that include Expanding Voter Access, Redistricting, Money in Politics and Fighting Voter Suppression.
League Support for Ranked Choice Voting
The LWV United States has published statements that include Instant Runoff Voting as an element to protect and
enhance democracy. The LWV Minnesota completed a two year study of alternative voting systems and published a
Study Paper with their findings. The result of the Study Paper, the LWV Minnesota updated its position to support and
advocate for Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting).
I have included a one-page Highlights document of the LWV Minnesota Study Paper, Alternative Voting System: Facts
and Issues. The Highlights document summarizes the problem with Plurality voting and highlights some of the benefits
of Ranked Choice Voting and includes a link to the published Study Paper.
Ranked Choice Voting Benefits Include
1. Restores Majority Rule. Ranked choice voting ensures that candidates with the most votes and broadest support win,
so voters get what they want. Candidates who are opposed by a majority of voters can never win ranked choice voting
elections.
2. Eliminates Vote Splitting. Ranked choice voting gives you the freedom to vote for the candidate you like the best
without worrying that you will help to elect the candidate you like the least. You never have to vote for the "lesser of
two evils" when there is another candidate you really like.
3. More Voice for Voters. Your voice matters more with a ranked ballot. You never feel like your vote is “wasted.” If
your favorite candidate can't win, your vote counts for the candidate you ranked second.
4. More Choice for Voters. Ranked choice voting levels the playing field for all candidates and encourages candidates to
take their case directly to you with a focus on the issues.
5. Reduces Incentives for Negative Campaigning. Candidates are encouraged to seek second choice rankings from
voters whose favorite candidate is somebody else. You are less likely to rank as your second choice a candidate who has
issued personal attacks against your favorite candidate.
As with any change in the election system, LWV St. Louis Park strongly encourages and will help with voter education.
I hope you find this information helpful when discussing the Charter Commission support for Ranked Choice Voting for
St. Louis Park.
Kind Regards,
Deb Brinkman
LWV St. Louis Park
612-803-6142
Deb.brinkman@gmail.com
Alternative Voting Systems: Facts and Issues
2004 League of Women Voters Minnesota Study Paper
Highlights Plurality and Ranked Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting)
The League of Women Voters (LWV) Minnesota conducted a two year study of voting systems and published the
Alternative Voting Systems: Facts and Issues* Study Paper with their findings. The Study Paper resulted in the LWV
Minnesota adding a position to support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), known today as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). This
document summarizes differences between our current Plurality Voting System and Ranked Choice Voting.
The LWV Minnesota two-year study looked at several alternative voting systems:
Our current Plurality voting system and 4 alternative voting systems:
Approval Voting (AV)
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) also known as Ranked Choice Voting
Borda Count
Condorcet
Plurality Voting System – Our Current Voting System
Each voter chooses one candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins. A fundamental defect of the voting system
exists in races with three or more candidates where it is possible for a candidate to win with fewer than 50% of the votes; in
other words, the winner can be elected by a minority of the voters. In fact, eleven of twelve statewide elections in
Minnesota conducted from 1998 through 2002 were decided by less than a majority.
Ranked Choice Voting System – An Alternative Voting System
Voters rank candidates on the ballot, marking their first, second, and third choices, based upon the number of candidates. A
candidate needs 50%+1 of the total votes to win the election. If no one has a majority, the candidate with the lowest
number of votes is eliminated and their votes are transferred to their second choice.
Ranked Choice Voting is not a new concept. The key to development of Ranked Choice Voting was the invention of the
single transferable vote (STV) in the 1850’s. A preference ballot, was invented around 1870.
Voting Systems Summary
Each of the voting systems in the study raises issues that vary depending on what people value and what they want to
accomplish. This list summarizes the most frequently cited pro and con statements made regard ing each system.
Plurality Voting System (Voters select one candidate; candidate with most votes wins)
• Is easy for voters to understand
• Preserves tradition
• Requires no legislative change
• Does not ensure majority rule when more than two candidates are running
• Votes for third party candidates may be “wasted”
• Is vulnerable to “spoiler” candidates
• Is vulnerable to manipulation
Ranked Choice Voting System (Voters rank candidates; votes for candidate with fewest first choice votes are
redistributed according to their second choices until one candidate achieves a majority)
• Ensures majority rule
• Allows voters to express preferences among candidates
• Eliminates problems of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates
• Eliminates need for run-off elections
• Does not meet mathematical requirement for monotonicity, although the problem of non-monotonicity exists only in
theory
*Link to the 28-page 2004 study Alternative Voting Systems: Facts and Issues
https://www.lwvmn.org/sites/default/files/2004%20Study%20Report%20-%20Alternative%20Voting%20Systems.pdf
Charter Commission
November 1, 2017
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Dear Charter Commission
I was in the audience at the last meeting of the Charter Commission. I understand that the Charter
Commission would like more information about Ranked Choice Voting.
I feel it is important to let you know that The League of Women Voters Minnesota conducted a two year
study on Alternative Voting Systems. As a result of this study, The League created a position to support
Ranked Choice Voting.
The LWV St. Louis Park and FairVote MN spoke to the Human Rights Commission last August about
Ranked Choice Voting. The attached presentation answered many of their questions and they voted
unanimously to support Ranked Choice Voting. I hope the presentation will answer the questions or
reservations you may have.
The League of Women Voters St. Louis Park and FairVote MN look forward to being available to provide
The Charter Commission additional information.
Regards,
Deb Brinkman
LWV St. Louis Park
612-803-6142
Deb.brinkman@gmail.com
Presentation to St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
August 15, 2017
Ranked Choice
Voting
What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked Choice Voting is a simple election process that
allows voters to rank candidates in order of their
preference –1st choice, 2 choice , 3rd choice and so on.
It works like a traditional runoff, but happens in a single
election, eliminating the need for a separate high-cost,
low-turnout primary in nonpartisan races (or runoffs in
partisan races).
In competitive multicandidate races, candidates need
second-and third-choice votes to win.
2
How Ranked Choice Voting works
3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53z9feUiqdg
Minneapolis Video
MPR Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHRPMJ
mzBBw
RCV example: Mpls Ward 9, 2013
4
Ty Others Alondra Ty Others Alondra
41%
38%
21%
41%38%
9%12%50%50%ROUND 1 ROUND 2
RCV benefits in municipal elections
Increases voter participation by rolling two elections into one, bringing
together the most voters with the most candidates in a single decisive
election in November when turnout is higher and more diverse
Eliminates vote splitting and ensures candidates win with the broadest
possible support
Increases opportunities for communities of color
Saves the cost of a (nonpartisan) primary
Fosters more civil and substantive campaigns
Eliminates spoiler, wasted vote dynamics
Reduces role of money in campaigns
5
2017 St. Louis Park Primary Outcome
2017 is the last year St. Louis Park will hold a municipal primary. A primary was
needed in the competitive 4-way race in Ward 1.
Turnout was 12.6%, which is very low, though higher than in recent municipal
primaries which have trended at 3-5%.
Support for the four candidates was split, with no candidate receiving a majority of
votes. The same would occur in the General Election without RCV.
Under RCV, all candidates would be on the General Election ballot. This is especially
important for candidates of color because low-turnout primaries disproportionately
hurt candidates from underrepresented communities. People of color vote in
significantly higher percentages in General Elections.
RCV also prevents vote splitting and ensures support for candidates of color can be
pooled, increasing the chance they’ll be elected.
6
Support for RCV in St. Louis Park
League of Women Voters-St. Louis Park
City Councilmembers Sue Sanger, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller,
Tim Brausen and Steve Hallfin
Nearly all candidates running in 2017
Sun Sailor and Sun Sailor editorialized in favor of RCV
DFL Senate District 46
7
RCV reduces voting disparity gaps
RCV is shown to increase representation for women and
people of color by:
1)Replacing low, unrepresentative, turnout elections with a
single high-turnout and more diverse election General
Election, and
2)By allowing for multiple candidates appealing to the same
community to run without splitting the vote.
In cities with RCV, the share of candidates who are women and
people of color has increased significantly.
8
RCV reduces voting disparity gaps
In California, where RCV has been used since 2004:
People of color have won 60% of all contests
Women have won 40% of all contests
13 of 18 seats on the San Francisco council are people of color, up 8
before RCV
When implemented in San Francisco, effective voter participation
increased by more than 300% in some neighborhoods. This is
because all voters cast a ballot in a single high-turnout election.
Before RCV, turnout in communities of color plummeted in the
runoff, decreasing their influence in the final outcome.
9
RCV reduces voting disparity gaps
In Minneapolis, where RCV has been used since 2009:
Following the first truly competitive races in 2013, RCV resulted in
the city’s most ethnically diverse and gender balanced city council
The first Somali-American, Latina, and Hmong candidates were
elected to the city council
This year (2017), the number of candidates who are women, people
of color or from different political parties is at an historical high
Competitive candidates of color are running in the mayoral race and 8
of 13 council seats
Competitive women candidates are running for mayor and 11 of 13
council seats
10
RCV reduces voting disparity gaps
In St. Paul, where RCV was introduced in 2011:
In 2011 and in this year’s mayoral race, highly competitive minor
party candidates are running.
In 2013, RCV elected the city’s first Hmong city council member with
second-choice votes. The second-placed finisher, also a candidate of
color, was selected to be the councilmember’s chief aide.
In 2015, Rebecca Noecker was elected with second-choice votes to
become the ward’s first female councilmember.
11
Are races in St. Louis Park
competitive enough to need RCV?
Yes, if the past 5 election cycles continue to hold true. Without a
primary, competitive 3-way plus races are likely to result in
winners with less than a majority and produce spoiler dynamics.
•2009 –3-way primary for Ward 4 (Ross, Theobald, Peterson)
•2011 –3-way primary for Mayor (Spano, Brausen, Johnston-Madison)
•2013 –3-way primary for Ward 3 (Santa, Arries, Lindberg)
•2015 –4-way primary for Mayor (Spano, Edlavitch, Segal, Evans)
•2017 –4 way primary for Ward 1 (Rog, Shekleton, Stout, Kaplan)
12
RCV is proven and simple
In Minneapolis in 2013:
Turnout was over 80,000, highest in 12 years
88% of voters ranked their ballots for mayor –78% used all 3 choices
85% found RCV simple to use
Valid ballot rate of 99.94%
Nearly 70% want to continue using RCV; nearly two-thirds want to
see it expanded to state elections
13
RCV is proven and simple
In St. Paul in 2015 (Ward 2):
83% of voters found RCV simple to use
73% of voters ranked their ballots
70% of voters like and want to continue using RCV in Saint Paul
14
Turnout is up in RCV races
By eliminating the low-turnout primary, RCV increases voter
participation in the election of the winner several fold
Turnout is also up under RCV races
Minneapolis:
•Mayoral race, 2013 –turnout was 80,000, the highest for a
municipal election in 12 years
•Ward 5, 2013 –turnout was the highest in a decade in the city’s
lowest turnout ward
St. Paul:
•Ward 1, 2013 special election –turnout was 33% higher than in
2011, and the highest in 8 years.
•Ward 2, 2015 open seat –turnout was 6% higher than in 2011
15
16
OFFICIAL BALLOT SAMPLE CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT
Judge__________ SAINT PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Judge__________NOVEMBER 3, 2015
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES
AARON ANTHONY BENNER
STEVE MARCHESE
MARY VANDERWERT
JON SCHUMACHER
LINDA FREEMAN
GREG COPELAND
SCOTT RASKIEWICZ
ZUKI ELLIS
KEITH HARDY
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER
VOTE FOR UP TO FOUR
VOTE FRONT AND BACK OF BALLOT
Turn over ballot to vote on city office
Ranked Choice Voting Ballot
St. Paul uses a mixed RCV and school board ballot (front
and back), similar to what a ballot in St. Louis Park would
look like. It works very smoothly and effectively.
DO NOT Overvote
DON’T #1
Do not choose more
than one candidate
for a single choice
REMEMBER! –For single
or multiple seat offices,
you can only mark one
candidate per column
DO NOT repeat a ranking
DON’T #2
Do not choose the
same candidate
more than once.
REMEMBER! –It doesn’t
help your 1st choice to rank
him or her more than once
or to not rank anyone else.
DO NOT skip a ranking
DON’T #3
Do not skip a column
Note! –When a skipped
ranking is encountered, the
ballot is counted for the next
highest ranking (as required
under the voter intent rules in
the Mpls RCV ordinance).
Ballot errors under RCV
Over vote: Overvotes occur in all elections and are caught by the machine.
These are “spoiled” ballots and redone by voters. Initially, there are slightly
higher overvotes under RCV than under traditional city elections. Highest
overvote rates occur under partisan primaries (6-7% in Minneapolis).
Skipped ranking:This is an infrequent error. When this occurs, the next
highest ranking is counted.
Defective ballots are extremely rare. The valid ballot error rate in the
citywide 2013 mayoral race was 99.94%. It was similar in St. Paul.
Under votes are not errors, but are highly discouraged because they result
in higher ballot exhaustion rates. Voters are encouraged to rank.
20
Where RCV is used
RCV is used in countries across the world, including Ireland,
Scotland, Australia, London (England) and others
Maine is first state to adopt RCV statewide –first use in 2018
RCV is growing across the US:
•Bay Area: San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro and Berkeley
•Minneapolis and St. Paul
•Portland, Maine
•Hendersonville, North Carolina
•Takoma Park, Maryland
•Telluride, Colorado
•Benton, Oregon
•Upcoming implementations in Sarasota (FL) Santa Fe (NM), Memphis (TN)
•Several southern states use RVC for military and overseas voting
•Cities in Michigan, Colorado, Oregon, New York, Washington and Maryland are
exploring RCV. 21
RCV Implementation
Minneapolis and St. Paul have paved the way for
other cities in Minnesota, especially in Hennepin and
Ramsey County.
The RCV ordinance, implementation process,
educational materials, training guides, tabulation
method and results reporting procedures are in place
and adaptable for communities like St. Louis Park,
minimizing start-up time and costs.
22
Voter Education
RCV is simple and quick for voters to learn,
but they must be informed of the switch.
Education is conducted by the city, FairVote
MN and the LWV. FairVote MN also partners
with community organizations that do voter
engagement work.
FairVote MN’s education includes events, door
knocking, phone banking, traditional and
social media, and candidate training.
Education by cities typically includes
information brochures, videos, sample ballots,
trained election judges and information to the
media.
The voter education model in Minneapolis
and St. Paul is nationally recognized and
emulated.
No need to reinvent the wheel –existing
education materials and processes can be
readily adapted for RCV in St. Louis Park
23
Process for adopting RCV
Like Minneapolis and St. Paul, St. Louis Park has a city charter
which can be amended to change the way it conducts its local
elections. The charter can be changed in one of two ways:
1.By approval of the voters (ballot measure)
•A question can be placed on the ballot through a citizen petition or
by a majority vote by the city council or charter commission.
2.By unanimous vote by the city council (this is how the
recent decision to eliminate the city primary was made)
•The city council must submit a charter amendment proposal to the
charter commission for review, though does not need its approval to
amend the charter by either a unanimous vote or to place a question
on the ballot.
24
Minneapolis & St. Paul
Election Chiefs on RCV
The 2015 RCV election was “the smoothest
election I’ve seen in my 14 years administering St.
Paul elections.” -Joe Mansky, Ramsey County
Elections Manager
“I’m proud of the work we’ve done in
administering RCV with efficiency, transparency
and trust.” -Casey Carl, Minneapolis City Clerk
25
What voters say about RCV
26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgVp0WDANhk