Correspondences — Burbank City Council, June 14, 2023

Meredith, Alyssa
From: Rosalie Salvato <
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 8:11 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: City Council - Democracy - Transparency
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To City Council Members,
I received a flyer last week regarding "voting districts in Burbank". This is the stupidest and dumbest thing I have ever heard. The City of Burbank is 17 miles. Voting Districts????????
What would be a better solution would be to have Neighbohood Councils to bring issues like this to the resident / votes to get our input prior to voting.

You MUST get the City Council AGENDA out to the public. Everyone DOES NOT access the internet.

I am disgusted,
Rosalie Salvato
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman d
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 3:15 AN
To: City Council DL
Subject: Comments for Districting Hearing, June 14, 2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilmembers:

RE Agenda Item E.1., Special Meeting, June 14, 2023

1. First, I would like to publicly thank the staff who prepared Attachment 1 of tonight's staff report: it is superb. Great work, thank you! The material there (especially from the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center) should help you and Burbank residents understand and explain Ranked Choice Voting and its benefits.

And so, the districting process you started and could end at any time continues to be a waste of people's time and taxpayer money. I haven't looked at the maps people submitted in any detail, but know I support the single district, whole city (ONE BURBANK) map, that I think someone said that they were going to submit. That map would enable proportional representation of voters' interests through Proportional (please note, not
"Progressive") Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV). As I have previously noted, PRCV does a better job than district elections do of electing candidates who represent voters' interests.

Steve Chessin, the longtime president of Californians for Electoral Reform, on whose board I have served, has looked at the maps in detail. I believe he will be sharing some of his findings with you in comments during the hearing. He has found that none of the maps has a proposed district with anything close to a majority of its citizen voting age population (CVAP) classified as Latino.

So, if the point of the threatened CVRA lawsuit here is to ensure a Latino presence in near-perpetuity on the Burbank City Council, carving the city up into 5 districts would fail to provide a sufficient remedy for the potential plaintiff. Using PRCV is a better way to address racial polarization of voters where it is a serious problem (which it isn't in Burbank).

Il.

I am a Redistricting Commissioner. I did look briefly at a few maps on the consultant-maintained website, and did not see, for each map, either of two valuable pieces of information that my commission asked for and had displayed for public viewing: the provenance of each submitted map (who submitted it) and the stated rationale behind it (what was the submitter trying to do?). You should ask for, share, and consider that sort of information.

III.

Also, the maps on the website are not "draft maps" within the meaning of the law. The law requires that the political subdivision draw such maps.

You are the governing body of the political subdivision, and you must do that drawing in a public meeting or meetings. This not work you can contract out to demographers, to consulting firms, or to anyone (including individual Burbank residents). Your deliberations and drawing sessions must be public, and you should give reasons for what you do, lest your decisions appear (or be held to be) arbitrary.

IV.

Since there are no draft maps, tonight's hearing cannot be convened under the law cited by in the City Attorney's office staff report (Elections Code Sec. 10010(a)(2)). This is a procedural error that requires you not comment on individual maps tonight. Rather, you must properly notice map drawing sessions and draw draft maps. Then you must publish those maps, and then you may then comment on them or refine them at meetings or hearings properly noticed for doing so.

Burbankers are still mystified about why you are not fighting back here.

The threatened lawsuit comes from state lawmakers trying to evict the city government from Burbank in violation of Burbank's charter, or lease!
VI.

It may be that the bounty hunters here are doing the bidding of an overly-race-obsessed state legislature that is blind to any sort of progress on interracial harmony, or that benefits from racial divisions.

You can see evidence for the theory of an overly-race-obsessed California State Legislature in the first column, above the fold, front page article in last Sunday's New York Times. That article makes clear that California's legislative leadership and much of its political elite are very much more in favor of race-based affirmative action than voters are. And the article reports that studies show the state has adjusted without severe consequences to Proposition 209.

The Court of Appeal opinion in the Redondo Beach case about election days noted that one must sue the government agency responsible for enforcing a law to challenge its constitutionality or validity.

In the CVRA case at hand there is no government agency specifically identified, but private citizens are allowed to step into the role of government agency. The potential plaintiff and his lawyers have done so here. I see no reason that you may not file a suit asking for a permanent injunction against this self-effectuated government agency enjoining the agency from enforcing this law against Burbank, because it is unconstitutional as applied to Burbank. You should do that now so you can stop wasting money and people's time on carving up the map of Burbank.

I've heard people say it's super-unlikely that a trial judge in Los Angeles County would ever question or rule against the validity in any situation of the "California Voting Rights Act" because the Act was created and so named by the State Legislature, to whose leadership and dominant party these people say the judges are beholden.

But that defeatist and cynical attitude fails to give due credit to the judiciary. That's much like some things I've heard commentators say about a certain judge assigned to preside over a certain criminal case against a certain former president.

It also gives too much credit to the state legislature and too little credit to the importance to judges of common sense, straightforward reading of the law, voters' interests, relevant data, and recent It's long past time for Burbank to go to court.
- David Holtzman
Burbank Resident
Ranked-Choice Voting with Instant Runoffs
***** a better way to do elections *****
Meredith, Alyssa
From: kevin harrop
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:59 PM
To: Perez, Nikki
Subject: City council districts?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Perez,
First, congratulations on getting elected. We don't know each other yet. If you ask any of your four colleges you will find that I am a pretty active constituent. I have slowed down a bit since Will Rogers died. I walked to 22,000 homes with him in his campaign.

My purpose in writing you is the proposal to change Burbank City Council from at large to districts. I am utterly opposed to this. I am asking you to do all you can to prevent the change.

Best regards,
Kevin Harrop
Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:16 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: Tonight's Public Hearing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good evening Vice Mayor Schultz:

I appreciated your comments during tonight's public hearing and your willingness to consider other approaches than simply rushing into district-based voting. I likewise appreciated your comments urging greater public outreach.

There has been a ground swell of public concern as it becomes more aware of what's involved and what's at stake.

I encourage you to continue your consideration of this issue with the same open minded, unintimidated approach you voiced tonight.

Thank you again,
David Gordon
Sent from Mail for Windows
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Linda Walmsley
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 6:26 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: Voting changes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Councilmember Takahashi,
At last night's meeting you said you were interested in the opinions of your constituents as it relates to the potential changes to our voting procedures. I am supportive of the changes to voting by district and know that the final decision is up to you and your fellow Council Members. I appreciate the information the City Attorney has provided to ensure that this process is done properly. The information that you have received from the demographers you have hired is complete and easy to understand. I trust that the decision the Council will make will best for the future of Burbank.

My only concern is that the outreach to the voters has been lacking in many ways. I don't understand why the Council is not reaching out to the Board of Education to collaborate and coordinate where possible. While the possible outcomes can be different, the basic process and requirements are the same. The information the demographers have provided to you and the Board of Education is exactly the same. Why did you not share costs for this data? Why are you not holding forums where both entities are presenting the initial data and the differences are explained to allow the citizens to attend one, rather than two meetings? Please work to unite the voters in accepting this change by showing that you can unite with the Board of Education to show that there is leadership in our city that has the ability to collaborate.

Linda Walmsley
--
Linda Walmsley
e-mail at
call at
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Steven Hill
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 4:55 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: Re: letter of comment on agenda item H1, "Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts"
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you Councilwoman Takahashi. I thought it was a good hearing, with many valid points being made. I have watched these dynamics play out in other cities also facing a CVRA threat letter. I have been a supporter of the voting rights act all my political adult life, but the California version of it really pushes cities' backs to the wall. And oddly starts feeling disempowering to the local residents who are forced to take a route that they have not had sufficient time to deliberate over. A number of people last night suggested that perhaps the best way to do this is to put it on the ballot, and let the voters decide. In San Francisco, they actually did that and put two measures on the ballot, one for districts and the second one for proportional ranked choice voting.

Districts prevailed with 56 percent of the vote, though P-RCV also almost reached a majority.

At least the voter's felt consulted in SF, as there were two campaigns debating the pros and cons of each measure. It was a vigorous and inspiring debate of the goals and values of voting rights, which made San Franciscans more informed. Just last year, Seattle WA did something similar, by having two ballot measures, one for RCV and the second for a voting method called approval voting. RCV won with 74 percent of the vote.

In my experience, voters are not dumb, they have the ability to make discriminating choices like this. Putting two different measures on the ballot like that would allow Burbank voters to really consider the options and what is best for the city.

That might be something to consider, and to put before your colleagues to think about during the discussions ahead.

Wishing you the best with these deliberations,
Steven Hill
elections consultant, co-founder of FairVote
1 ---Original Message--
From: Takahashi, Tamala < [email protected]>
Sent: Apr 11, 2023 4:39 PM
To:

Subject: Re: letter of comment on agenda item H1, "Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts" Thank you for your email, Steven.

We will continue to look at all the options available. Please watch the meeting tonight and feel free to reach out with any additional thoughts on how we can move forward.

Kindly,
Tamala Takahashi
Burbank City Councilmember
818-238-5750 (phone)
http://burbankcouncil.substack.com
From: Steven Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:53 PM
To: City Council DL <[email protected]>; Anthony, Konstantine < [email protected]>; Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>; Mullins, Zizette < [email protected]> Cc: Steven Hill
Subject: letter of comment on agenda item H1, "Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Burbank City Council
From: Steven Hill, elections consultant, co-founder of FairVote Re: comments on agenda item H1, "Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts" Dear Burbank City Council
My name is Steven Hill, and I am a cofounder of FairVote and one of the architects of the Ranked Choice Voting method that is used in over 60 US cities and many states. I have authored several books and dozens of articles on this topic. I was contacted by Burbank residents and asked to offer you some thoughts about the current move to go to district elections as a result of a California Voting Rights Act threat. 2 An alternative method exists that not only would likely provide better representation to the underrepresented communities targeted by the CVRA, but it also would allow Burbank to retain citywide elections and at the same time offer Burbank a degree of "safe harbor" from the CVRA. That method is called Proportional Ranked Choice Voting.

The Burbank city attorney staff report says "It is not statistically possible to create a single-member electoral district in Burbank in which Latino eligible voters (citizens of voting age population or "CVAP") constitute a majority. Both the Latino and the Asian populations of the City are disbursed throughout." So it seems pointless to use districts which will not achieve the goals of the CVRA. But proportional ranked choice voting would actually accomplish the job of allowing traditionally underrepresented communities to have a fair chance to win representation while maintaining the citywide perspective and not moving to districts. In the election year in which three seats are being elected, under proportional RCV rules it would take 25 percent of the vote to win one of those three seats, and the Latino population of Burbank is very close to that victory threshold.

Proportional representation methods have been used for many decades, both in the United States and in many other countries. Proportional voting has a demonstrated history of electing diverse legislatures, including minorities, women, candidates lacking deep financial resources, and many others.

In addition, switching to proportional RCV would actually delay any CVRA attempt to force the council to switch to districts. The reason why is because a CVRA action is a data-driven process. The plaintiffs have to come forward with specific data that proves their claims of a long-standing pattern of racially polarized voting under the current system, and to some extent a lack of political success for minority candidates and voters under the current system. But if Burbank switched to P-RCV, that act would "reset the clock" in terms of collecting data.

The plaintiffs could not claim there is polarized voting under P-RCV when P-RCV has not been used yet. So plaintiffs would have to delay their CVRA lawsuit for a number of years.

I have followed the lawsuit in Santa Monica closely, and I understand that as councilmembers you feel that you are in a difficult situation. Nevertheless, you do have some time to explore options that arguably will fulfill the goals of the California Voting Rights Act better than district elections will.

If I can be of any assistance in your deliberations, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, all the best Steven Hill
elections consultant
3 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Jason Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 9:47 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: 11 April council meeting - districts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hey Nick,
Just finished watching last night's council meeting, and thought I'd send some feedback.

First, I was sorry you are canceling the Morrison's event - I was looking forward to the discussion. I understand if you think the optics are bad, but then I'm not sure why you scheduled it in the first place? Second, you commented on the room not being nearly full enough for such an important discussion as districts. As someone who is generally involved, but have not attended any of the workshops, I thought I'd let you know why.

1. Attending these sorts of events is miserable. Most of the people who attend these sorts of events are angry gadflys who show up to rant. The description of the staff member forced to remove their mask only goes to prove my point!

1.5 Similarly, attending City Council meetings is equally interminable. There's a reason I go to the dentist more often than I get up the nerve to attend council meetings. They're incredibly long, generally interminable, and mostly uncomfortable. I really don't want to listen to Schlossman rant about BWP again, or another diatribe about Raising Cane's. It's just not worth my time or effort to sit through this meeting, after an entire working day of sitting through meetings!

2. I don't really have any meaningful feedback. The realty is, drawing maps of these sorts are technical endeavours that should be done by professionals versed in the law, not laymen who think of themselves as geniuses. Being a 50-year resident of Burbank does not make someone qualified to understand the VRA or California voting law, and we would be better off as a society in general if we understood our individual limitations. I was deeply unimpressed by the Mayor's provincial comment about how we need someone from Burbank to draw our maps, as if someone from _Shelbyville_ could not possibly understand our special-snowflake city.

3. It doesn't actually matter! Whether I get drawn in with other blocks south of Magnolia, or west of Buena Vista, or whatever does not matter. I don't have some kind of beef with the houses south of Verdugo to the point that I can't share a district with them.
4, Your macho chest-pounding aside, Burbank doesn't have much choice but to comply with the district mandate.

Whatever my opinion about California law, a litigant can likely compel the city to implement these districts, or tie up the city in a decade-long lawsuit (as Santa Monica shows us). Frankly, we have better things to do than try to defend that suit, and I hope your desire to look good for your constituents who hate districts does not blind you to that reality.

Maybe you can find a creative loophole, but I suspect that our prospective litigant will not be impressed.

Anyway, you asked out loud why more people were not in attendance, so hopefully this single perspective fills in your understanding. Always happy to talk!
1 Jason Bennett,
E pur si muove!
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Linda Walmsley
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 11:40 AM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: Re: Fw: Voting changes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the time and thought that you gave to it.

I do disagree that the Council and the Board of Education have different needs and interests in this matter. The goal is exactly the same. It is to get voter participation fair and equitable for everyone in Burbank. The process and legal requirements are exactly the same. While the outcomes may be different, getting to them is the same.

If the goal is to increase voter participation for all citizens then educating them the "hows and whys" of this change is, in my opinion, how you do that. Let's just start with the letter the city and the district received... the same. Now move on to the rules and goals required by the CVRA... the same. The demographic summary being used for data... the same. The maps provided by the NDC that give more data... the same. The tools to create maps for consideration... the same. And finally, the presentation by the NDC... the same. All of this could have been presented in a coordinated effort. Once the basic "why and how" were presented the differences could be explained and then the voters would have a true understanding of this process including the similarities and the differences.

Most citizens that have some knowledge of this matter think that we will have 5 districts that will serve both the Council and The Board of Education. Many think that this change will only occur if thè voters approve it. Most do not understand why one person could trigger such a major change. Only those of us that have been in Burbank for many years know that this idea was considered long ago, If the information had been presented as a coordinated effort these concerns among others could have been addressed.

The reluctance to work together just fuels the continued thought that the Council and the Board of Education do not work together to serve the interests of the citizens you all serve. The "lip-service" that is given by both bodies about collaboration when possible is not, in my opinion, served by the way you are proceeding with this matter.

You ask why I favor district voting. I was supportive of this when it was discussed long ago and I remain so now. I believe it allows for more participation for those wanting to run for office and gives the voters an opportunity to have representation that could give focus to issues specific to their interests. You also asked my opinion of proportional ranked choice voting. I am opposed to this.

Linda Walmsley
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 8:12 AM Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Joe,
1 A community member is curious why we are not collaborating with the school district and holding meetings together with them. Thank you.

Kindly,
Tamala Takahashi
Burbank City Councilmember
818-238-5750 (phone)
http://burbankcouncil.substack.com
From: Linda Walmsley
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 6:25 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]>
Subject: Voting changes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Linda Walmsley
Linda Walmsley
e-mail at
call at
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Linda Walmsley ‹
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2023 7:19 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala; [email protected] Subject: Follow up comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

It was so nice of both of you to give me your time and interest at the Leadership Burbank event last night. As we discussed, here are my thoughts and ideas for moving forward with the transition to voting by districts.

Reasons to do community outreach in a collaborative and coordinated manner:
• To date both the Council and the School Board have done a poor job of getting the needed information out to the voters. Accept this and move on together to show that you are both capable of making better efforts. In addition to showing that the information campaign has been lacking, it would also show that you can work together.
• The basic reason, the letter from Mr. Guiterezz, is triggering the same action for both entities. • The response required by the CVRA is the same for both entities • The process required as to the Federal laws and the traditional redistricting principles are the same for both entities
• The demographic summary and maps provided by the NDC are the same for both entities. • The public mapping and map review tools are the same for both entities • The suggested questions to help identify a Community of Interest are the same for both entities • Once you have defined the "why and how" of this change you could easily educate the voters on the differences (timeline and possible outcomes)
• Voters could access this information using the same website and/or by attending one meeting rather than two • Voters would better understand the process and the reasons for similarities and differences for each entity Reasons to promote common Communities of Interest:
• You both serve the citizens of Burbank.
• You have a rich past of working together.
• You share a joint use facilities plan.
• There are many city programs that have a direct relationship to education in Burbank. To name a few... the library, sports programs at the parks, preschool programs at the parks and library, creative arts programs at the parks.
• The city funds crossing guards and SRO's.
• The BPD supports the district by ensuring that traffic around all school campuses is monitored for safety. • The BPD is supportive of all football games at Memorial Field. • The city provides power, water, trash collection, street and sidewalk maintenance for the schools. • The fire department provides paramedic services and checks all campuses for fire code enforcement. • The Park and Rec department is a major daycare provider for the children in the district. • The city has been a good partner by allowing the use of McCambridge pool for BHS during the need for repairs.

They willingly share fields at Olive park for JBHS softball 1 • Clearly there are similarities between low income areas and school success for those children. It would seem that having the same Council and School Board districts could allow for those representatives to work together to get appropriate services in those neighborhoods to make things safer and more supportive of families trying to have the best outcomes for their children.

These are just my thoughts. I hope that you find them helpful as you move forward with implementing this change for our election process.

Linda Walmsley
Linda Walmsley
e-mail at
call at a
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: D. A. Holtzman
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 12:35 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: Fwd: Battle in Seattle: RCV vs. Approval Voting this Nov.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

CM Takahashi,
Since you mentioned approval voting when we spoke, I thought you should see this. It's by Steven Hill, who called in to last week's City Council hearing on districting. l've been occupied with other things, but have some follow-up thoughts from the hearing that I hope to write up soon.

Thank you again for your leadership on considering PRCV for Burbank! The concluding paragraph of my comments was to commend you for that, but I ran out of time. - david h.
p.s. In case you didn't get the email from Joan Hardie, she's hosting a Glendale Burbank Unit meeting of LWVGLA at her home at 3pm on Sat. April 29.

I'm sure the issue will be discussed.
..-- Forwarded Message ---
Subject:Battle in Seattle: RCV vs. Approval Voting this Nov.

Date:Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:25:54 +0000
From:DemocracySOS
Reply-To:DemocracySOS
<reply+1b8ybr&nn431&&22452ce4e611d5014ddfacc6e9bbd5d274282c16eb5dcedc48a7a5fdf1bb969d@mg1.substa Tol
Open in browser
1 Battle in Seattle: RCV vs. Approval Voting
this Nov.

So far approval voting has not lived up to its promise
Steven Hill
Oct 19
• LISTEN SAVE
2 Electoral systems are a democratic wonder that don't get nearly enough attention by either experts or the public. It's usually an eye-opener for most people when they find out that you can cast the same votes through different electoral systems - district elections vs. at-large vs. ranked choice voting vs. proportional representation vs. cumulative voting and more - and end up with completely different results, in terms of which candidates get elected.

That's a mindblower. Suspend for a moment what you've heard about the impacts of campaign finance reform, or redistricting commissions or mail-in ballots or Election Day registration. Those are important components, but compared to the electoral system itself those are sides to the main show. The electoral system is the Big Top Tent of the democratic circus, while those other reforms are more like the booths where you purchase your cotton candy or toss rings to win the giant stuffed snake.

So it's great news that this year a record 10 jurisdictions across the US will vote on whether to adopt ranked choice voting (RCV) in their elections, including the largest cities in several states, small towns, and the entire state of Nevada.

One of those cities is Seattle, where voters will have a choice this November over whether to adopt RCV or yet another method, called approval voting, to use in their primary elections for local offices. Voters will also vote on whether they want any reform at all, and if they vote 'yes, then whichever of these two methods they select will be used to whittle down larger fields of candidates to the final two finishers, who will face off in a November runoff.

RCV vs Approval Voting
Which method would be better for Seattle elections, ranked choice voting or approval voting? That's what voters need to decide. Advocates of both reforms are fiercely making their case to Seattleites.

Among advocates of the two methods, there is actually agreement on at least one thing: that the current method, called plurality voting in which all voters can cast one vote for their preferred candidate and the highest vote-getter wins, is the worst method of all.
3 But it sounds so simple, how could it be the worst?
It has to do with the specific defects of plurality voting, which results in spoiler candidates, split votes among like-minded voters, and candidates often winning with low percentages of the vote.

Imagine you are voting in a primary election and there are eight candidates running for the final two spots. Let's say there are three moderate Democrats, three liberal to progressive Democrats and two Trump-MAGA Republicans. In this election, the three moderate Democrats win, respectively, 14%, 13% and 8% - 35% of the overall vote. And the three liberal/progressive Democrats win 14%, 11% and 8%, for a total of 33% overall. And the two Trump Republicans each win 16% for an aggregate of 32%. That means over two thirds of this electorate voted for Democrats, but because there were so many Democrats in the race who split the center-left vote, then two MAGA Republicans would make it into the top two, with one eventually becoming the "representative" for this heavily Democratic district.

This is not merely a theoretical consideration. This kind of "crapshoot casino" vote has actually happened in some Congressional districts in California when too many candidates from the same party ran. There is too much at stake to simply say "tough luck, too bad, better luck next time." When an election method selects a single winner who is actually not supported by the vast majority of voters, that undermines the very fundamental spirit of democracy itself - the sense that the majority should prevail.

To prevent such split votes, other methods besides plurality can be used.

Approval voting and RCV are two of those methods (and there are others, including STAR, Range and Condorcet voting).

But each of these methods have their own pros and cons. Nobel laureate economist Kenneth Arrow proved 70 years ago that all electoral systems have flaws. Nevertheless, some are better than others because they produce winners with fewer unintended consequences and that better ensures that the most popular candidates win.

The flaws of approval voting
Approval voting has its strengths. Theoretically, it is simple for voters to use in that voters get to "approve" of as many candidates as they wish. So voters are allowed more than one vote, and election officials count up candidates' totals and the highest vote-getters win. Simple.

But its simplicity is deceptive. The more you look into approval voting, the more you look under the tent, the more questions arise about its efficacy. It doesn't really solve the spoiler candidate or split vote problems. Instead it kinda sorta turns it on its head.

Imagine it is the 2024 Democratic nomination for president. You prefer President Joe Biden as your top choice, but you also would be able to begrudgingly accept Gavin Newsom or Amy Klobuchar as the party's nominee.

So you are tempted to "approve" of all three candidates, and in fact that's what the voting instructions as well as approval voting advocates instruct you to do.

But here's the problem. Your vote for either Newsom or Klobuchar could actually help one of them defeat your favorite, Joe Biden. Biden's very smart campaign advisors quickly figure that out, so candidate Biden starts telling his core supporters: "Don't approve of any other candidate, only approve of me.

Otherwise, you'll hurt my chances."
The other candidates start figuring that out too, and they relay that message to their supporters. Voters start engaging in a strategic voting practice known as "bullet voting," in which they only use one of their many "approvals." So what started out as a system to override the defects of plurality voting starts tilting toward - ta daaaa! - plurality voting.

Compare that dynamic to ranked choice voting. With RCV, voters rank their candidates, 1, 2, 3, and your vote counts for your first choice as long as that candidate is in the race. Your vote does not count for your second, third or subsequent rankings until your earlier-ranked candidates have lost. It is a runoff system, in which your lukewarm-preferred candidates cannot help defeat your favorite candidate. So voters can feel free to rank as many candidates as they wish. RCV truly liberates the voter to express all of her or 5 his preferences without fear of unintended consequences like spoilers or split votes.

And RCV prioritizes that winners must have both strong core support (indicated by being ranked first on many ballots) and widespread support (ranked second, third, etc. on many ballots). But with approval voting, candidates win by having broad support but don't need a lot of core support; a milquetoast candidate could win even though few voters regard that candidate as their favorite.

For all these reasons and more, which I will explore below, I regard approval voting as a much weaker reform than ranked choice voting.

Approval voting in practice
This is not just a theoretical concern. While approval voting has not been used in very many public elections - just two cities use it currently, Fargo, North Dakota and St. Louis - in both of those cities you can see the troubling dynamics of "bullet voting" playing out.

For approval voting's maiden election in Fargo in June 2020, nearly 19,000 voters cast 42,855 total votes for city commissioner, with two seats being elected. So voters used an average of 2.28 votes per person, which is not that different than before approval voting, when Fargo voters were allowed to vote for up to two candidates. In its analysis, FiveThirty Eight concluded "not too many people actually took full advantage of approval voting" by using too many of their approvals. In fact, many if not most voters bullet voted.

For Fargo's elections in June 2022, FairVote conducted an opinion poll and estimated that 60 percent of voters bullet voted in the mayoral election conducted by approval voting. Despite there being seven candidates - meaning voters could vote up to seven times, once for each of those seven candidates - voters approved an average of just 1.5 candidates.

In St. Louis, we see a similar story. For its mayoral primary in March 2021 using approval voting, two finalists were selected from a field of four candidates. In the old pre-approval system, voters had a single vote. But in the approval voting election, despite voters having four approvals to use, voters approved 6 an average of only 1.6 candidates. In its city council primary, two candidates qualified to go on to the general election for each seat, and according to an analysis by Alan Durning of Sightline Institute, voters approved an average of just 1.1 candidates per seat. The low approval rate of 1.1 per ballot corresponds to a bullet voting rate of 90 percent or higher. Another study found that 24% of voters said that the reason they approved of only one candidate was because they feared that voting for more than one would hurt their favorite candidate's chances.

Fargo candidates quickly figured out this bullet voting dynamic, because it just makes practical sense when running under the rules of approval voting. So candidates began instructing their voters accordingly.

Incumbent mayor Tim Mahoney during his reelection campaign said "I would probably bet that every candidate says just vote once." One of his challengers, Republican state representative Shannon Roers Jones, agreed saying, "It will be important for me to convey to people... that the most effective way to elect the person they care about is to vote only for that person." Election administrator Mike Montplaisir, who runs Fargo's elections, said that he also "voted for only one candidate - the candidate I wanted to win - because voting for anyone else is like taking a vote away from [my first choice]." He added, "You can game the system."
Elections are like a board game, with certain rules and strategies that give advantage to the players that play the game the best. For approval voting, these strategic voting schemes are a core part of the system. Overall, bullet voting rates in those Fargo and St. Louis elections were likely between 50 and 90 percent. In comparison, RCV bullet voting rates have been between 10 and 40 percent. In New York City's contested Democratic RCV primary for mayor in September 2021, which nominated current mayor Eric Adams, only 13 percent of voters bullet voted, according to a study by the City University of New York.

So this is a real defect of the approval voting system. And its proponents refuse to acknowledge it, which only undermines their advocacy. That's not to say that using approval voting might not still have advantages over a plurality method. In the St. Louis mayoral election, which resulted in the election of St.

Louis' first black female mayor, some observers credited approval voting with preventing the splitting of the black vote. Still, this dynamic of bullet voting, and candidates encouraging such behavior from their voters, is something to watch closely and to gather more data about, as more elections are conducted using this method.

Approval voting disadvantages low-information voters
Voters and candidates who understand how in approval voting, choosing a second or third candidate can cause your favorite candidate to lose, will always have an advantage over those who are not aware of it, or are undisciplined in how they spread their votes. Like with plurality voting, voters still must strategically weigh whether it's more important to help their first choice win — by withholding votes from compromise candidates —or to approve a "lesser evil" candidate to prevent their "greatest evil" from winning.

But for those voters who do not understand these dynamics, they could inadvertently end up undermining their favorite candidate by simply following the instructions on the ballot or listening to approval voting advocates, who invite them to approve of multiple candidates.

In fact, just like with plurality voting, with approval voting you cannot even guarantee that the most popular candidates will win. Look at my earlier example, in which two Trump Republican candidates advanced to the runoff because too many Democratic candidates split the center-left vote. With approval voting, if all of those candidates were to instruct their core supporters to only approve of them, those two MAGA Republicans would still finish in the top two even though Democratic candidates garnered two thirds of the vote. Or if the supporters of some candidates are disciplined in how they use (or withhold) their votes, while other voters are not disciplined, distortions in outcomes could easily result.

So for many voters, they are stuck inside an "approval voting conundrum," a kind of Catch-22, in which they might be damned if they vote for too many candidates; and unlike with RCV, they are not even allowed to express different levels of intensity for various candidates without potential blowback.

Not only is that prejudicial against the uninformed voter, it also does not reflect the way most people think as they go about their lives. Most people rank things in their heads all the time, from their favorite movies to flavors of 8 ice cream. And in most elections, they usually have some idea of which candidates are their favorite, which is their second choice, and so on. But with approval voting, that natural process is truncated.

Seattle has a choice between approval voting, which is largely untried in public elections and has exhibited strange characteristics and anti-democratic tendencies in the handful of races that are available to study; and ranked choice voting, which has been used for nearly 100 years in Australia and Ireland, and more recently in Malta and Sri Lanka to elect their presidents, and in Scotland to elect its local councilors (in multi-seat districts). Increasingly it is used in the US to elect candidates at local, state and federal levels, including some 53 cities and the states of Alaska and Maine (including blue cities such as New York, Minneapolis, and San Francisco and nearly two dozen red cities and towns in Utah), and six states where parties use it for presidential primaries while six other states use it for their military and overseas voters.

Some 11 million voters in the United States now live in RCV jurisdictions that in total have completed hundreds of RCV elections, and Americans have cast tens of millions of RCV ballots. To be sure, the consequences of using either ranked choice voting or approval voting in the primary election to select the top two candidates for a November runoff are not nearly as momentous as switching elections to proportional representation, which is the best method of all for a "multi-everything city" like Seattle. Three hours south down the I-5 Interstate corridor, Portland will be voting this November whether to adopt a method of proportional ranked choice voting to elect its city council.

Both of these votes in the Pacific Northwest are consequential. It's time to vote, Seattle. Good luck in making your decision.

Steven Hill
Share
Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work!
9 Upgrade to paid
Thanks for reading DemocracySOS! Your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. To receive full benefits and to support our work building a more perfect union, become a paying subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

LIKE ECOMMENT
© 2022 DemocracySOS
10 Meredith, Alyssa
From: jocelyn lundquist
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 10:09 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Regarding voting for council by district
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I object to increasing the size of the city council from 5 to 10 council members. I am sure there is a way to form districts that would not involve doubling the size of the City Council! I am okay with 1 or 2 more council members but not 5 Mary Jocelyn Lundquist
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Laura Soroka
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 11:39 AM
To: McFarland, Simone; Anthony, Konstantine; Nick Schultz; Zizette Mullins; [email protected]
Cc: Laura Soroka
Subject: Burbank Redistricting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe..

Please forward to Nikki and Tamala as I do not have Thursday Contact info.I think this is a ridiculous idea for a City the size of Burbank. You only have 107,000 people in a 17.1 sq mi area.

Also this takes away a Burbank residents right to vote for ALL 5 Council Members instead of only 1.

What happens should the representative in your so-called District in not great? We were nit given a choice whether Burbank residents really wanted to be broken into Distructs and we won't even have a say as to which Council Member will represent each District. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY, this is Dictatorship.
it's not like the City of LA where you have Districts comprising the City like Sherman Oaks, N Hollywood, Inglewood just to mention a few with a population of millions.

In the State ir County Levels of Government I can see Districting because you ate talking of a much greater area covered and many millions of people in those large areas Also WE GET TO VOTE AS TO WHO WE WANT REPRESENTING A SPECIFIC DISTRICT, not being told who will represent us. BIG DIFFERENCE and called DEMOCRACY.

You can't be copycats, it's like making a fruit basket supposed to have variety but you only have one fruit.
1 Yes, the State wants Cites to go to Distristictingbut that shouldn't be ALL CITIES, it should depend on many factors.

You are sounding like a certain Party and their Bullying tactics? Is this what you decided to do when taking office? If so resign now fir the betterment of this City.

Also, once you decide to proceed, two (2) of you out if the 5 are running for positions outside of Burbank abd it seems all you are trying to do is get your names out there rather than doing what is right for the residents of Burbank.

Notvecomibg to implement something and then walk away to leave us stuck to carry the bag of garbage you left behind.

And who will get to choose your replacements to represent your So- Called District! Are we going to have a say, Doesn't sound like it so we could be stuck with a represent we never heard of. And this is Democracy?
You better drop this Districting idea before it's too late.

Laura Soroka
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Clark, Kimberley
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:23 AM
To: ity Council DI
Co: eorge, Sandra; Hess, Justin; Wilke, Judie; McDougall, Joseph H.: Vander Boraht, J Subject: FW: Letter In Opposition to District Based Voting and Related City Publicity Dear Honorable Mayor Anthony and Council Members,
Former Mayor Dr. David Gordon asked me to forward you his letter, which appears below.

Thank you,

BOURGANI KIMBERLEY CLARK
City Clerk
(818) 238-5851
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
CITY CLERK'S [email protected]
OFFICE BurbankCA.gov
From: David W Gordon
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:37 PM
To: Clark, Kimberley <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter In Opposition to District Based Voting and Related City Publicity CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please bring this letter to the City Council's attention.

Thank you.

Letter In Opposition to District-Based Voting and Related City Publicity
April 27, 2023
Dear Councilmembers:

You are likely aware of the City's ongoing promotional campaign ushering in a dramatic change in Burbank's traditional voting process from at-large to district-based voting. I want to once again 1 register my opposition in the strongest terms to the baseless allegations leading to this process. Furthermore, I assert that the City's publicity campaign for this transition is not only inconsistent with the City Council's January 24, 2023 Resolution to retain consultants so that the the Council may "consider" whether or not to adopt an ordinance formalizing this change, but smacks of advocacy for a particular Council action.

I have attached a link (below) to a recent City website sent me and have included and highlighted excerpts herein from the above referenced advocacy.

Excerpt 1: The City of Burbank is undergoing an exciting change intended to give residents a more powerful voice in local government. The City Council has unanimously decided to transition from the current at-large election of its members to election by districts.

The "change" that is being considered by the Council may be "exciting" to the staff preparing the publicity, but that is a subjective view. Much to the contrary of the claim the change will "give residents a more powerful voice," most Burbank residents remain unaware and uninformed about this change and in fact will reduce their voting influence by diminishing their elected government representation by 80%.

According to the wording of the Council's January 24th Resolution, "The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an ordinance.....to transition to a district-based election system." The Council DID NOT "DECIDE to transition to election by districts. The City's unqualified and inaccurate broadcasting to the public that the Council DECIDED to transition to this new election system is misleading at best. A more realistic interpretation is the transition is a done deal. No mention is made of the Council's possible final considered action may well be to reject, modify or take no legislative action at all on this type of election system change.

Excerpt 2: "We look forward to working together to make this transition a success!" Who does "We" refer to? The public hearing process requires the Council to remain unbiased and impartial. The Council has not yet decided to formally adopt this change. Once again, rather than objectively providing information to the public, the City publicity injects emotional encouragement despite significant, informed opposition to this election system change.

Excerpt 3: "Beginning in November 2024, Burbank residents will vote for one City Council member who lives within their district."
It is an assumption that beginning in November 2024 District-Based voting will have been adopted and implemented by the City Council. But the City's publicity presents this assumption as a highly inaccurate and misleading affirmative statement of fact. In fact, this is propaganda.

Oxford's Dictionary defines "PROPAGANDA" as "Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view." The City's credibility and integrity is called into question when it bypasses the democratic process to influence public opinion.
2 Excerpt 4: "Burbank is committed to making the districting process transparent and inclusive through multiple public hearings and community meetings seeking input from the public into the districting process. Further action is required by the City Council to (1) introduce an ordinance during the 4th public hearing approving the preferred districting map, and (2) adopt the ordinance during the 5th public hearing approving the preferred districting map."
The City's stated commitment to transparency and inclusivity of this process is disingenuous. Burbank residents have long believed and trusted that public hearings were supposed to be fair and unbiased allowing the decision makers to receive unfiltered public input before deliberating and rendering a decision. Reading that the "districting process" will go through public hearings would lead most concerned Burbank residents to believe they could weigh in on whether or not they even wanted to discard their long established, successful voting system for an untested one, inspired by a single individual alleging violation of State law. But this is not the case all. Instead, the scheduled public hearings are only to consider district mapping proposals by the public and/or consultants. While true that if the Council decides to adopt District-Based voting maps will have to be drawn up. No mention is made by the City's publicity that the Council yet retains the option to reject, modify or take no action on the election system changes.

I urge the Council to address the importance and integrity of the process and for the City's Public Information Office not to provide the public with distorted or misleading information and to remain, and appear to remain, at all times unbiased and impartial on this very important voting system issue.

Thank you,
David Gordon
https://burbankcouncildistricting.squarespace.com/
3 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Kramer, Bob
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:28 PM
To: _aura Soroka; Hess, Justin; Wilke, Judie; [email protected] City Council DL; McDougall, Joseph H.

Subject: • RE: Burbank Redistricting
Laura
Thank you for your email. I am going to send it on to additional staff.

Sincerely
BobK
BURBAN Bob Kramer
Community Assistance Coordinator
275 East Olive Ave Burbank CA 91502
P: 818.238.5795 | F: 818.238.5757 | [email protected] From: Laura Soroka
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Kramer, Bob <[email protected]>; Hess, Justin <[email protected]>; Wilke, Judie <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Laura Soroka
Subject: Burbank Redistricting
CAUTION; This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments Unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe..

I am totally against redistricting Burbank.

It is too small with an area of 17.35 mi? and
a population of 105,401 (2021) to be even
considering Redistricting.

To even compare Burbank to Glendale's Area: 30.6
mi?; Population of 192,366 (2021) which is nearly
twice the area and population of Burbank never mind
comparing Burbank to the City of Los
Angeles's Area: 502 mi2; Population
of 3.849 million (2021),
There is just too much uncertainty right now for
Redistricting to take place without true consideration
of the Pros and Cons involved and the Burbank
residents to really fully comprehend and understand
the impact of Redistricting would effect and mean to
the future of Burbank. RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE A

SAY IN DETERMINING IF THEY FEEL BURBANK
SHOULD BE REDISTRICTED, not only in MAPPING OUT
THE DISTRICTS. We need much more information and
time to consider such a MAJOR UNDERTAKING
instead of just JUMPING INTO REDISTRICTING SO
QUICKLY. One (1) meeting to consider and vote on
Redistricting is way too short of time. You are talking f the future of Burbank, not what to have for dinner
tonight.

Stop being a copycat. Yes the State would like Cities to Redistrict but Not all Cities are big enough area or
population wise to Redistrict. If it isn't realistic, which is in this case, then leave Burbank alone.
2 Also you need to consider that 2 of your Council
Members making is SNAP decision are running for
positions outside of Burbank. Should something
happen to Senator Feinstein before her term is up in
Nov.,2024, then it is possible Adam Schiff could
become our Federal Senator, Laura Friedman could
replace Adam as our Federal Congresswoman, Nick
Schultz (because he is running against Laura could
become our State Assembly Member of District 44
which in turn would mean that Konstantine Anthony
would need to appoint a NEW Vice-Mayor (and that's if
nothing happened on the LA County Board of
Supervisors where Konstantine is running for a
position of that Board)
And who would determine the NEW District
Representative that Nick and/or Konstantine would be
representing?
Not only the above, but Redistricting infringes on
the Rights of Voters to chose who they want to
represent them not be told who will represent
them.

Even Voters DO VOTE for Their Choice Of who will
represent them in County, State Senator, Assembly
Member, Governor, yet BURBANK CITY COUNCIL
seems to feel they can just do this amongst themselves
3 without the Residents having any say except in the
Mapping of Districts. This is NOT HOW A DEMOCRACY
WORKS, IT's how Communism and Dictatorships
operate.

In a huge area and large population like the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County or the State of CA as a
whole, then Districting makes sense as the area and
number of people are way to large for one person to
handle.

CA itself is too large for even only one (1) Governor to reside over.

Reconsider your ridiculous plans to Redistrict
Burbank before it is too late.

Laura Soroka
4 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Brittany Margaritis
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:41 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: Re: Concerned Burbank Citizen
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Mr. Schultz,
I hope this email finds you well!
We spoke almost a year ago about some things going on in the Grismer area that were concerning me. I really appreciate all your help, I was put in contact with some good resources. There are still some things going on, but that's not the reason I'm writing to you today!
I'm writing you today because I saw signs up around our neighborhood regarding Burbank voting districts and voters drawing their own. I've gone on the website and I have to say, I'm concerned. This seems like a very slippery slope for gerrymandering. I know citizens aren't actually creating the maps, just making suggestions. But who is creating these voting districts? Is it a non-partisan group? Or a computer program that draws the districts? I would love to talk about it with you more if you're able to give me a call sometime! Thanks!
Brittany Margaritis
From: Brittany Margaritis -
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:28 PM
To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
Subject: Concerned Burbank Citizen
Hi Mr. Schultz,
My name is Brittany and I'm a Burbank constituent. I'm writing you about some current concerns in the neighborhood ! live in. Would you be able to give me a call to discuss? | left a message on the city council answering machine as well, but not sure how often that is checked! My cell number is:

Thank you and look forward to hearing from you!
Brittany Margaritis
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From:

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:44 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Burbank ANCA maps
Attachments: Burbank 2023 Districting Map (Hillside).pdf; Burbank 2023 Districting Map.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello members of City Council,
Thank you for your interest and urging to e-mail you Burbank ANCA's "rough around the edges" maps. They are attached.

As I said when I addressed you earlier tonight, the key concern is to keep 1-5 as a natural district boundary, to the extent possible under the constraint of having roughly equal population included in each of our new districts. This is because the overwhelming portion of Burbank's Armenian community resides there.

The "hillside" map represents one configuration east of 1-5 that should be considered, and the other an alternative. The latter map's inclusion of districts west of 1-5 was just an attempt at a comprehensive approach to getting the numbers about right.

Be well.

Garen
1 Burbank 2023
An onlne version of this map that allows you
Districting Public to 2n0m in and out for more detail is available as a link from the City website
Participation Kit PORUATTON
1205
22,2934
-----:
1531
1710
635฿
Lach number indicates the total population of that -- WEAS SAra.... "population unit" area. Each district must have 1512 1226 essentally equal population. If there are five Council
1SN2
districts, the population of each district must be close to 21.510. with no more than a 2,151 difference
904 1660
berween the largest and smallest.
1261
Please use a thick dark-colored pen to draw your map. 891 then submit it at Ciry Hall or br email. POPULATION:

You can hand-deliver. mail, fax, scan and email, or 23,346 photograph and email your map.
754
Name:

Phone / Email:

An online version of this map that allows you
Districting Public to zoom in and out for more detail is available 21,760 Participation Kit as a link from the Cirv website.
1214
122
817
1531
moron drs.
1710 746
POPULATION:
21,724 635
Bach number indicates the total population of that
"population unir" area. Each district must have 1512 1226 1615
essentially equal population. If there are five Council 1461
1521 1892
districts, the population of each district must be close

JESUS ANS
to 21.510, with no more than a 2,151 difference POPULATION:
901 901
berween the largest and smallest.
21,401
901
Please use a thick dark-colored pen to draw your map.
then submit it at City Hall or br email.
1227 978
You can hand-deliver, mail, fax, scan and email, or 1076 636 photograph and email vour map.

POPULATION: 1371
1254
21,138
Name:

POPULATION:

Burbank City CouncilJune 14, 2023

Burbank City Council
June 14, 2023