Rob Dickinson is the Executive Vice President of Californians for Electoral Reform and has worked closely with Assembly Member Mike Davis on AB 1121.<\/p>\n
Please call Asm. Skinner’s office to support AB 1121
\n
> Dear Judy,
\n
>
\n
> I appreciate your question regarding Assemblywoman
\n
> Skinner’s response to Steven Hill’s message about AB
\n
> 1121.<\/p>\n
> It is accurate, in my opinion, to say that Assemblywoman
\n
> Skinner is a swing vote for our bill in committee.
\n
>
\n
> We need 9 votes in the Appropriations Committee to pass our
\n
> bill out of committee, and we have 8 votes. “There are two other members of the committee that are not yet supporting the bill, and they too could be considered swing votes”. Essentially,
\n
> we are 1 vote short of the necessary 9 votes for passage,
\n
> and if Assemblywoman Skinner votes in support of the bill,
\n
> we pass out of committee. That would have been true on
\n
> Weds. of this last week, where her vote would have passed
\n
> our bill out of committee, and is probably true for next
\n
> Thursday when we will still need her vote.
\n
>
\n
> No votes have been officially recorded on the bill in
\n
> Appropriations, but we still know how people were planning
\n
> to vote. We know both because the various offices tell
\n
> us in advance how they plan to vote, but members also tell
\n
> committee staff how they plan to vote. The members of the
\n
> committee inform the committee staff in advance of how they
\n
> plan to vote in order to give the Chair information
\n
> necessary to decide how to proceed on each bill. For
\n
> example, the committee has shorthands for many common votes,
\n
> such as “A Roll Call” vote, which means all
\n
> members – both Dems and Reeps – vote in support” and
\n
> “B Roll Call” vote, which is a party-line split
\n
> with all Dems supporting and all Reeps opposing. So we
\n
> knew who was with us and who was not.
\n
>
\n
> The bottom line is that if Assemblywoman Skinner votes for
\n
> the bill, it moves forward in the Assembly, and if she
\n
> either abstains or votes no, then the bill never gets out of
\n
> committee. And so far she has not been willing to indicate
\n
> a yes vote on AB 1121.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Her lack of support is incredibly surprising to everyone
\n
> involved with this legislation, as her district is so
\n
> overwhelmingly in support of instant runoff voting —
\n
> probably close to 70% in support (given that Berkeley and
\n
> Oakland passed IRV with 69 percent and 72 percent of the
\n
> vote respectively). And that disconnect is even more
\n
> surprising given how modest this bill is. It is
\n
> important to note that this is merely a pilot bill to allow
\n
> only 10 general law cities or counties to have an option to
\n
> use ranked voting. The bill is completely optional and
\n
> mandates nothing. Any city or county that does so as part
\n
> of this legislation would be required to provide a detailed
\n
> report on the experience which would help inform future
\n
> policy choices. In other words, the bill was designed to
\n
> re-assure any legislators that might have concerns. So, if
\n
> Asm. Skinner does in fact have concerns, one would think
\n
> that this legislation would offer an ideal way to get more
\n
> information from a handful of jurisdictions using IRV to
\n
> explore whether or not there is any merit to those
\n
> concerns.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> It is also important to note that the legislation requires
\n
> any jurisdictions that wish to use IRV as part of this pilot
\n
> program to obtain approval of their voters. So any
\n
> jurisdiction that proceeds with IRV as part of this
\n
> legislation will have the support of the majority of their
\n
> voters, which is a very democratic model.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Additionally, the bill is in the Appropriations
\n
> Committee to consider its fiscal impact to the state. The
\n
> Appropriations analysis concludes that the bill incurs no
\n
> cost to
\n
> California. That is the primary purpose for why the
\n
> bill is in
\n
> Appropriations — to consider its fiscal impact — since
\n
> the policy
\n
> committees have already considered whether or not they
\n
> believe the
\n
> policy to be sound and in the interest of the state. It
\n
> is important
\n
> to remember that the Democrats on the policy committee —
\n
> Assembly
\n
> Elections and Redistricting Committee — voted unanimously
\n
> in support
\n
> of the bill in an earlier vote on April 21st.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Given the modest nature of this legislation, it does make
\n
> Asm.
\n
> Skinner’s unwillingness to vote for it perplexing.
\n
> And she is clearly
\n
> out of step with her district on this issue.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Regards,
\n
>
\n
> Rob Dickinson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rob Dickinson is the Executive Vice President of Californians for Electoral Reform and has worked closely with Assembly Member Mike Davis on AB 1121.<\/p>\n
Please call Asm. Skinner’s office to support AB 1121
\n
> Dear Judy,
\n
>
\n
> I appreciate your question regarding Assemblywoman
\n
> Skinner’s response to Steven Hill’s message about AB
\n
> 1121.<\/p>\n
> It is accurate, in my opinion, to say that Assemblywoman
\n
> Skinner is a swing vote for our bill in committee.
\n
>
\n
> We need 9 votes in the Appropriations Committee to pass our
\n
> bill out of committee, and we have 8 votes. “There are two other members of the committee that are not yet supporting the bill, and they too could be considered swing votes”. Essentially,
\n
> we are 1 vote short of the necessary 9 votes for passage,
\n
> and if Assemblywoman Skinner votes in support of the bill,
\n
> we pass out of committee. That would have been true on
\n
> Weds. of this last week, where her vote would have passed
\n
> our bill out of committee, and is probably true for next
\n
> Thursday when we will still need her vote.
\n
>
\n
> No votes have been officially recorded on the bill in
\n
> Appropriations, but we still know how people were planning
\n
> to vote. We know both because the various offices tell
\n
> us in advance how they plan to vote, but members also tell
\n
> committee staff how they plan to vote. The members of the
\n
> committee inform the committee staff in advance of how they
\n
> plan to vote in order to give the Chair information
\n
> necessary to decide how to proceed on each bill. For
\n
> example, the committee has shorthands for many common votes,
\n
> such as “A Roll Call” vote, which means all
\n
> members – both Dems and Reeps – vote in support” and
\n
> “B Roll Call” vote, which is a party-line split
\n
> with all Dems supporting and all Reeps opposing. So we
\n
> knew who was with us and who was not.
\n
>
\n
> The bottom line is that if Assemblywoman Skinner votes for
\n
> the bill, it moves forward in the Assembly, and if she
\n
> either abstains or votes no, then the bill never gets out of
\n
> committee. And so far she has not been willing to indicate
\n
> a yes vote on AB 1121.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Her lack of support is incredibly surprising to everyone
\n
> involved with this legislation, as her district is so
\n
> overwhelmingly in support of instant runoff voting —
\n
> probably close to 70% in support (given that Berkeley and
\n
> Oakland passed IRV with 69 percent and 72 percent of the
\n
> vote respectively). And that disconnect is even more
\n
> surprising given how modest this bill is. It is
\n
> important to note that this is merely a pilot bill to allow
\n
> only 10 general law cities or counties to have an option to
\n
> use ranked voting. The bill is completely optional and
\n
> mandates nothing. Any city or county that does so as part
\n
> of this legislation would be required to provide a detailed
\n
> report on the experience which would help inform future
\n
> policy choices. In other words, the bill was designed to
\n
> re-assure any legislators that might have concerns. So, if
\n
> Asm. Skinner does in fact have concerns, one would think
\n
> that this legislation would offer an ideal way to get more
\n
> information from a handful of jurisdictions using IRV to
\n
> explore whether or not there is any merit to those
\n
> concerns.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> It is also important to note that the legislation requires
\n
> any jurisdictions that wish to use IRV as part of this pilot
\n
> program to obtain approval of their voters. So any
\n
> jurisdiction that proceeds with IRV as part of this
\n
> legislation will have the support of the majority of their
\n
> voters, which is a very democratic model.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Additionally, the bill is in the Appropriations
\n
> Committee to consider its fiscal impact to the state. The
\n
> Appropriations analysis concludes that the bill incurs no
\n
> cost to
\n
> California. That is the primary purpose for why the
\n
> bill is in
\n
> Appropriations — to consider its fiscal impact — since
\n
> the policy
\n
> committees have already considered whether or not they
\n
> believe the
\n
> policy to be sound and in the interest of the state. It
\n
> is important
\n
> to remember that the Democrats on the policy committee —
\n
> Assembly
\n
> Elections and Redistricting Committee — voted unanimously
\n
> in support
\n
> of the bill in an earlier vote on April 21st.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Given the modest nature of this legislation, it does make
\n
> Asm.
\n
> Skinner’s unwillingness to vote for it perplexing.
\n
> And she is clearly
\n
> out of step with her district on this issue.
\n
>
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> Regards,
\n
>
\n
> Rob Dickinson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2775,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[],"tags":[7321,441,497],"class_list":["post-8960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-7321","tag-441","tag-497"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pvhz-2kw","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2775"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8960\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}