we heard from, when we were thinking about putting their appeal on the june election, supporters kept telling us, no, do not do it in june. if you are going to do it, do it in november, because the presidential election is going to have a super high turnout, that is when it needs to go on the ballot, so i do not agree that this november will be an inappropriate time. if we want the most voters to weigh in on this, it should be in a presidential election, and the fact that we are doing it now three years before the next mayoral, that is the best way to do it. the last thing you want to do is to be changing or repealing this for the mayoral election, for example, on the eve of the election, the year before, for example, so it is a good thing to be doing it well in advance because we do not know who will be running or what the dynamics

are. we are doing it on a policy basis only. in terms of the september primary, the way this is structured i think will work well. it automatically sends the top two to the november runoff, and unless someone gets a supermajority, so it avoids a situation where someone avoids sneaking -- squeaking in, they have to have a percentage in order to avoid a runoff entirely, and in terms of the department of elections having the ability to handle this additional election, frankly, we did this for many years when we had run off, so i think the department is quite capable of handling an additional election, so for those reasons and others, i will be supporting this charter amendment today. supervisor farrell: : k ? --

supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am glad we are talking about this, such a frank discussion. i did not supported before because when we look at the data, it is a limited amount of data. when we look at the data for the runoff, what we find is that in every election for office, the turnout has always decreased from november to december, and that has always been my primary concern. what i did mention is that the one exception to that was the 1999 and 2003 mayoral race, where voter turnout actually increased. those are two particular cases where the city was severely engaged, and there were exciting candidates, and i am not saying that will always happen in the future, but what we talked about is what i would consider, which is in the case of voter turnout

increases, i would consider moving to that. and i think for other reasons, whether it is the board of supervisors, the attorney, what we see is that less voters come out in december, and we have less voters determining who represents them in that particular office, so that is what i said before. the second issue about whether if we were to move to a system like that whether his is september or november or december, i think it is really hard to say in september we would get the turnout we would like to see, but i am open to having a conversation about that. of course, we have a limited amount of time before putting that on the ballot. there will be great turnout this year because it is a presidential election year. but i also understand the concern that if we have another four years, should we not spend more time really examining what

the best solution would be, and the last thing i would say about this charter amendment is how we came to the number of 55%. there does not seem to be a basis or formula with which we picked that number. i am not sure it was based on other types of primary, but usually we do 50% plus 1%, and i understand we want to have a higher threshold for candidates in order not to go to a general election, but i do have questions about how that number came to be. i would just like a lot more information on how we determined that number. supervisor farrell: ? president chiu: thank you, mr. chair. i would also like to hear about that. supervisor: when we talked about

going to a runoff, with all of my colleagues, i shared the same sentiment that i wanted to maximize voter turnout. inherently with two elections, one would have a higher voter turnout than another. the idea of the september election, that is to say that in a general election, we will have the highest voter turnout. i understand however. when you look at the mayor's race, this did have higher turnout. but when we were talking about broader city-wide offices, we wanted to maximize turnout. that is what brought up the construct of this september election. because this has not happened before in san francisco, and i think there was a generic fear of the unknown, we wanted to make sure that it was very difficult or a little bit more of a burden for someone, when

potentially voter turnout would be lower. i think we would all agree. to what degree, we do not know, but there will be lower turnout in september than in the november general election. i think we can assume that, and we will work to make sure it is as high as possible, but we want to make sure it is a very high threshold to win an outright. the 65% number came from a number of stakeholders and was a compromise. there was no magic behind it, but that was the purpose and the intent behind it and one that got everyone comfortable with it to submit it the way it is today. supervisor farrell: president chiu? president chiu: thank you. first, i want to thank supervisor farrell and the others working on this. i want to go to the comments from supervisor campos.

i have been one who has thought it has worked as it was intended. i think it has also led to more positive campaigning, and i think we have seen that a huge percentage of san franciscans i think fairly understand the system, have exercised their choices, and i think the system has worked relatively well. that being said, i certainly appreciate the perspective for change. i also think if we're going to make changes to it, we should consider the average, and i am concerned with the current proposal, which i do not support in its court form -- current form. i think it moves away from what we have seen. that being said, colleagues, i answered it in a set of amendments with regards to this version which i hope captures some of the concerns and sentiments of what we are trying

to achieve. i do think that given the issues that were brought up there are a lot of issues that some would have been open to seeing the mayoral race go into a runoff. i think that if there is a measure that it be focused on the mayor's race, my strong preference is that the runoff to a mayor's race be a rank choice ron off and that if there is going to be the two elections that it be in november/december set of elections as opposed to a september-november set of elections. i think the september-november time frame, it is obviously an incredible experiment we are making. we know what november looks like. we also know that in the last three mayoral elections, two of which were contested, those that were contested saw a very high turnout. the only alexian that did not

have a high turnout was in 2011, where mayor newsom at that time did not have the type of incumbent competitiveness that we have seen both in 2003 as well as in 1999, so my proposal, colleagues, would be to focus just on the mayor's race, have to be a rank choice vote up to the first run off and then shipped the election to the november time frame. supervisor farrell: president chiu, are you making a motion to amend? president chiu: i am. supervisor: supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: just to be clear to people in this drama, one of the many issues about rank choice of voting, and the primary for me, is the notion of

confusion. this amendment exacerbates that confusion. eisenreich -- i understand the comments about going to a mayoral race. it is not something i would ideally like to see, but i think it is worth talking about. this amendment to have the right choice of voting in the runoff to be exacerbated, and i think it could be the worst thing we can do today. so while i appreciate it, i will be voting against it and hope my colleagues to the same. supervisor wiener: i hear there is an amendment. president chiu: that amendment is circulating. if you want to take a few minutes, i am happy to support that. supervisor wiener: i think i understand. i just wanted to make sure i had the paper. supervisor: supervisor olague?

are you offering amendments? supervisor olague: yes, i am offering an amendment to limit to just the mayor. supervisor: this is amended. this is what is currently on the floor. supervisor: -- cohen: i would like her to clarify. supervisor olague: my amendment,

my intention was to limit the runoff election to just the mayor's race and not to the other lesser offices, like sheriff and some of the other offices that were being suggested. it would just limit the runoff to the mayor's race. supervisor cohen: this is not just for the attorney? president chiu: i am proposing in be limited to the mayor's race and that the specific changes would be to have a run of system. the first election would be a rank choice of voting system. in other words, if there are multiple candidates that would use the system we had used for a number of years to determine who those top two candidates are, as we did in the most recent mayoral race, and then those two

candidates would go into a december runoff. that is the proposal. supervisor cohen: supervisor -- thank you. supervisor: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i am trying to understand the proposal. if you are saying you do not want to eliminate the right choice of voting for all city offices, but you are ok eliminating it for everything except for the mayor, what is the policy rationale for that, and second, it the focus is on the mayor, why act today in 2012 when the mayor's race is not happening for another few years?

supervisor olague: i think for one, this is still a piece of legislation that would be going to the voters, so when i first signed onto this, part of my intention with signing on to this at all initially was because i felt we did need to reach some kind of a compromise, and rather than see something placed on the ballot that would completely eliminate right choice voting, i thought, well, we could come to a place where rank choice of voting would be considered, and we would leave these to the city offices. that would be for the local board races. that would at least did the conversation going, would allow voters to consider whether they

felt it was something that was effective, whether or not we saw some of the goals we had originally set, whether it helped san francisco, whether we did it with less negative campaigning, and about the challenge of incumbents, so i think in many ways putting the legislation on the ballot was a way of saying this is something that the voters really should be considering. since that time, i was placed on the lafco board, and there have been a number of studies conducted by cory cook and others to sort of evaluate it, and that is information i did not have at the time that i sponsored the charter amendment. that being said, i went back and

forth as recently as a week ago, and i seriously considered pulling my name because the number of, you know, there was a lot of people who were very concerned with its removal for a number of reasons, so i feel like in many ways i had made some commitment to consider pulling my name from the legislation, but in retrospect, i feel that, well, i put my name on the legislation initially, so it seems it would be in bad faith to pull my name at this point, and also my intention initially for placing my name on it was so that we could preserve right choice voting on some level and that the voters would have the opportunity to reconsider it in many ways.

my reason for wanting to limit it to the mayor's race is because i think still the mayor's race has more voters and more people that are focused on that race than the other subsequent races. so i think that would be a good opportunity to say the runoff elections, and i think that three years ahead of the mayoral race gives the department of elections and the city enough time to prepare with how they're going to respond to that type of voting, so we have time to prepare and are not waiting to the last minute and responding at election time. chiar: thank you, supervisor. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you. my approach to this is i am looking at election reform.

i was a strong supporter of choice of voting will what we are calling it because i thought it would increase participation, especially of disenfranchised communities and to have maximum participation in any election, whereas others have said runoff tends to be at the time of lowest possible turnout, except for unusual situations, like the gonzales race or the ammiano write-in campaign. i am appreciating that we're talking about the mayor's race only now, but still i do not want to see a system that is going to be based on two different elections, which privileges the more wealthier, funded candidates over grass roots or cancel it may be mass support but not much money, so i think we are moving away from

maximum democracy and against civil-rights, so i feel very uncomfortable about how this discussion is going. i appreciate the intent of supervisors and my colleagues in discussing this, but i worry removing away from a more democratic voting system. chair: ok. supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor elsbernd. i want to thank everyone for these points. in the spirit of compromise with what the supervisor has put forward, i specifically, again, do not support what president chiu is suggesting. i appreciate his point, but i think this would promote so much confusion that we would be worse off than we are today. to the extent that confusion is a subject that bothered folks to

sign onto it to begin with, i think the president's proposal will produce confusion in a much worse way than where we are at today, but i will support supervisor olague's amendment. again, to me, this is something that is not ideal, but in the spirit of compromise, i think that is why we brought it back to the board of supervisors. i think we do a good job of disagreeing with each other sometimes and also with finding common ground, so i will be supporting that. supervisor elsbernd: : supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i want to know what the difference is between the two set of amendments are. i am wondering if maybe

supervisor olague or president chiu can talk about these so we can maybe understand what their differences are. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor kim? when you turn your microphone on, supervisor? supervisor kim: i would like to give opportunity to answer my statements. supervisor elsbernd: president chiu? president chiu: i will answer that. our proposals have some overlap in that we are changing it to simply the mayor's race. the difference is she would keep it such that the top two individuals in a first race in september would go on to a november runoff, whereas with my proposal, in the mayor's race, we're talking about a november 1 election whereby you would use rank choice of voting -- 48

november first -- for a november first election whereby you would use rank choice voting. i think this has been proved. our electoral system has insured that more people are engaged, that candidates are reaching out to multiple constituencies and overlapping constituencies, and i think it has led to a more diverse body that we have. to supervisor mar's comments, we have seen at the history of our country, electoral systems that do not use rank choice voting that frankly have shut out disenfranchised communities, and i do think when the choice of void -- voting helps set for the first election but not for the second of this the because

you only have two individuals. with the issue of the time, i want to hear more about why folks think we should go to a september system, because i think most voters do not really focused on elections until really after labor day, and what we are seeing is that labor that happens, election happens, which will be one of the major decisions that are voters have to make. so from my perspective, particularly giving the past experiences, the november- december time frame makes sense, but, colleagues, i will be interested to hear your feedback if others think it, as well. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor chu? supervisor chu: this is the first time i have heard this, so i appreciate it. i disagree with the premise that rank choice of voting is confusing. anytime you have a new election system, there is going to be

confusion, but i actually think over the last election cycles, there has been a lot of outreach, and i think far from that, when you look at the data, what we're finding is that voters understand the process and are utilizing it. of course, when i was running, like everyone, i would find some voters who were confused, but once you explained it, i never had people continue to tell me that they did not understand the process, and as i think about it more, i think it is less confusing when the others are ranked choice. that is the primary, and that is a system that people are already familiar with. it also makes sense to have been in november because that is when people would be voting. this is assuming the amendment that passes that was brought forward by supervisor scott wiener. i support that. i would also like to hear the rationale about september. i have not seen the data.

i know there are several municipalities that have a september primary, and it would be interesting to say how the turnout is for those municipalities. i will probably support one of these amendments to the charter, but i think over the next few weeks, i would like to spend time talking to a lot of groups that are engaged around election and of course increasing civic engagement and to get their perspective on how they feel about this step process for the mayor's race. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor campos? 'supervisor campos: thank you. i was not thinking of this when i came in, but if i could ask the attorney, through the chair, when we have to act on a charter amendment regarding this item, what is the deadline? and i am just following up on what supervisor kim was saying.

>> july 24, but we have an option. >> so i think, to that chair, what are the meetings in july that we have for the board of supervisors? supervisor elsbernd: 10, 17, in 24. supervisor camos: i would certainly like to hear more time to hear the merits of these. i think taking the time to make sure we understand implications of what is being proposed makes sense, so i make a motion to continue this item to july 17. supervisor elsbernd: as a procedural reminder, if it is continued, upon amendment, it

needs to be amended and then to the call of the chair. there would only be the opportunity to amend one time. perhaps if folks want more amendments, the 10th is the better date. supervisor campos: so i will amend the amendment until the 10th. >> and if they are listening, i would suggest that we make the amendment today and then amending them so you have both of them before you for the 10th. supervisor campos: so i make a motion to divide the file and -- >> amended version a and amendment b. supervisor campos: so moved.

>> supervisor campus has made a motion. a second. supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: my question is, i believe this is directed to you, supervisor olague. when would that be? to the end of september? supervisor olague: let me look. i forget. i think it is the second week in september. it is the second tuesday. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. i appreciate all of the back- and-forth. the proposal to amend the file

and move both versions ford, i think that is the right way to go. actually given my choice right now of the two of them, i would probably choose the president's measure, and i approach this whole thing with personal experience, like david chiu, as well. i think going through the whole round choice vote election last year was actually a very positive thing for the city, and a very positive thing for the way the candidates had for the most part engaged. there are exceptions, of course. but what i saw in terms of the part of the electorate that was very engaged, it was something i felt was really unprecedented in san francisco. in my district, there was an office that the