Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 All right, we will call Committee of the Whole to order.
0:16 Out objection, I'm going to excuse the absence of Councilwoman Hamilton Steiner, since
0:22 as you all know, she served on Charter Review Commission.
0:27 She has recused herself from the conversation about the Charter Amendments, and since that
0:32 is the bulk of tonight's conversation, she has opted out of abundance of caution not
0:40 And then next, I will move to approve the minutes of the May 11th Committee of the
0:44 Whole without the necessity of a reading.
0:47 Motion is made and seconded.
0:49 Hearing none, all those in favor?
0:53 And that motion passes.
0:54 Okay, so as indicated in my preamble, tonight we're talking Charter Amendments, potential
1:03 We have already voted two out of committee favorably back to full council.
1:10 Most of the ones remaining tonight have some tie-in to rank choice voting save
1:18 So it really makes sense to start off with talking about rank choice voting because
1:26 our decision there may affect how we want to move forward with or not with the others.
1:32 So as I'm sure you've all read my lengthy communication in detail about how these
1:39 are all interconnected, but so starting with the rank choice voting one, we have
1:47 In Charter View Commission, the final report recommended, asked us to put an amendment
1:55 on the ballot potentially that would give council the option to adopt, if adopted by
2:02 the voters, would give council the option to adopt rank choice voting via ordinance
2:09 We had conversation about that in previous Committee of the Whole when we talked with
2:15 the law department and looked at the opinion from the Legislative Services Center about
2:24 whether or not that option, while I believe the Charter View Commission intended that
2:30 to be give council, actually it said to give council the most flexibility.
2:34 That was before SB 63 passed and that legislative opinion would suggest that should
2:41 council adopt by ordinance or resolution that it would, in fact, trigger SB 63, which
2:48 could threaten local funding.
2:50 So that is why I said, but that language, as essentially recommended by the Charter
2:55 View Commission, just so that we could compare apples to apples is put forward
3:01 in Ordinance 27, 2026.
3:04 And then because we had that opinion about that it would potentially be less risky if
3:12 council wanted to move forward to have it, rank choice voting directly adopted by
3:19 voters via charter amendment, directly by the voters with, so Ordinance 21, 2026
3:26 presents it that way with and includes a severability clause that would make it
3:33 null and void should essentially the language of SB 63 as well as, or it would
3:40 be found non-constitutional.
3:42 So those are two potential ways to move forward.
3:51 So one that is not drafted currently would be to essentially, again, go directly
4:00 to the voters via charter amendment, but that it would not go into effect until SB
4:09 So that would be kind of an option three.
4:11 So instead of saying it's severability, it would just not go into effect.
4:16 And then option four would be to wait until after maybe the November election,
4:24 which would allow us to see shifts in the legislative and legal landscape, more
4:28 time for public dialogue and engagement prior to a charter vote.
4:32 So those are four options as I see them about this, this moment.
4:37 And I'll pause there and allow council members to chime in.
4:45 Thanks, madam chair.
4:46 So first, thanks for putting so much work into all of these and for being
4:51 clear and organized before talking about rank choice voting.
4:55 Do you anticipate tonight that we're going to have time for some of the
4:58 others on the agenda or is tonight mostly about the first topic?
5:03 I think that depends how quickly we determine if this body has no interest
5:10 in moving forward with anything at this time, then we can start working on
5:14 the other ones or we know what we need to do with the other ones.
5:18 If we want to contemplate one of what I'm going to call option one or
5:22 two or three, then we'll probably need to spend more time on that because we
5:27 won't know the other ones.
5:29 For instance, the one about the elected position salaries has timing
5:36 related to primary or not.
5:38 So the language of that would be affected.
5:41 This is all laid out in that extremely long communication, but several of the
5:45 So what the specific language of those are would be affected by whether or
5:49 not there's a primary.
5:50 So that would potentially have implications on what we decide with
5:56 That answers your question.
5:58 The redistricting one is not necessarily connected.
6:03 So if we have time to talk about that, we could move on to that as
6:11 So, and while I've got you, so the four options are.
6:15 Uh, I'd say option one ordinance, 21, 20, 26.
6:20 That's the one that was, um, where it would be adopted directly by the
6:25 voters into the charter with the severability clause option two would be
6:29 ordinance 27, 20, 26 for charter to allow council to adopt an ordinance
6:36 resolution in the future if we wanted to, which is what the charter view
6:41 commission recommended.
6:42 Um, but they, again, they recommended that before SB 63.
6:45 And then after we had the committee of the whole, where we thought that
6:50 may, um, essentially automatically trigger SB 63 and then three would
6:55 be, it's not drafted, but the idea being that it's adopted directly
6:59 by charter should SB 63 be repealed.
7:02 So it only goes into effect if that's repealed or option four is
7:06 wait and, um, look at this in the future.
7:10 How are, how are one and three different?
7:13 Uh, one is it goes into effects, but the severability clause and
7:19 actually I might turn to the law department in this, but how I,
7:24 what I would understand is severability clause, like it goes
7:26 into effects, but the severability clause would negate it.
7:29 Whereas a trigger law one would be, it would not go into effect
7:34 until SB three was repealed.
7:36 So if voters said, yes, we want to do this.
7:39 So if you think about this with some of the, um, like some states have
7:43 the abortion law where if, uh, yeah, that trigger laws.
7:48 So it, it's, it can't be in effect because it's in violation of,
7:52 you know, um, so, so one and three are similar, but with important
7:56 differences, similar concepts, but a little mechanical differences
8:00 that are, we're talking about.
8:05 Are there council members?
8:08 Vice president Baker.
8:10 Yeah, first I, you know, I want to say thank you president couple for
8:14 spending a tremendous amount of time on, on the charter of view things.
8:17 Um, it's very important as, as we've talked about before, you know,
8:21 it's essentially our city constitution.
8:22 It's the one thing that goes before all the voters.
8:24 And so we have to think about, you know, what we want to make.
8:28 So it can't be changed very easily.
8:30 Um, so I appreciate into it as I've kind of gone down this
8:36 journey of rank choice voting.
8:38 It's appealing to me for a lot of reasons.
8:41 Um, the one which I think is most persuasive to folks I talked to
8:46 in the community is that a primary in September is very, um, the
8:53 community typically doesn't know about it.
8:55 Uh, it's, it's typically an extremely low voter turnout and it requires,
9:00 um, a lot of paperwork at a time when people would just get back to school.
9:04 Other things are going on.
9:05 So in, in, in a lot of ways I saw rank choice voting.
9:08 I think it has a lot of positives beyond this, but I think it creates
9:11 some simplicity in municipal elections, um, where you basically have
9:16 an instant runoff and you have no need for a primary election.
9:20 Um, that said, and I like that Lakewood is, is progressive and
9:24 that we're living our values.
9:26 I do not want to use our budget that could go to paving roads and,
9:31 you know, making new parks into defending litigation about rank
9:34 choice voting, nor do I think any of these options are going to
9:37 put us down that road.
9:38 Uh, but I just, you know, so which is why we're taking such care with
9:41 the different versions we have and the potential ones we can go with.
9:45 Um, with in, in light of what the state's doing and I, I don't
9:52 know, um, that it will change.
9:55 And I guess the, and so I'm legitimately weighing all these
9:58 and I don't know what to do.
9:59 Uh, I think about what the charter commission originally proposed, which
10:04 was before we have a lot of facts that we have does leave it to council
10:09 essentially, it's a council action.
10:10 Um, whereas our election process previously were charter driven, uh,
10:17 that does potentially put us in a spot of a future council deciding
10:20 that they want to take on that litigation risk.
10:23 Um, so we need to think about that.
10:25 Uh, I would certainly fight vehemently against us taking on
10:28 that litigation risk as a council person today.
10:31 This charter will live with future councils, so it just won't be us.
10:34 Um, the trigger one, uh, is, is appealing, although that does set
10:40 up some practicalities of like when exactly it's repealed and
10:46 then it's effective date and the way it's, so I, I could see some
10:49 problems just like on the ground and logistical about that.
10:53 Um, but it just makes me so darn mad that the state won't
10:58 let us govern our own affairs.
11:01 Um, you know, as, as to how we elect our leaders.
11:03 Uh, so I'm, I'm open to what my colleagues have to say about it.
11:07 I'm kind of leaning towards what the charter review I'm leaning
11:12 towards with the charter view recommended or nothing, uh, as I
11:15 think where I'm at, um, as I consider all these things.
11:19 And I feel bad saying that president couple, cause I know you
11:21 spent a lot of time drafting a lot of different versions of this.
11:24 Uh, it's important.
11:25 It's, it's very important.
11:26 Um, but I think that's where I'm at.
11:29 Um, because I don't want to put us in a situation where, you know,
11:35 the charter requires something that the state repeals and then
11:38 we're kind of racing against time, filing deadlines could have
11:41 come and passed, who knows what would have happened?
11:43 Uh, and I, I come back to the, you know, I, I trust the
11:48 voters of the city and I trust who they put in these seats.
11:51 Uh, so I trust that the future councils among us will act
11:54 appropriately, uh, or at least act with the, with the wishes that
11:58 the public has of them, uh, which I think is a better way to put it.
12:02 Um, so that's where I'm in between doing nothing and doing
12:05 what charter review commission initially recommended, but can
12:09 be persuaded on this issue and, and awful minds can disagree as well.
12:16 And I, you know, I'll just add that, um, you know, I think the
12:23 charter view commission put a lot of, I know they did put a lot of time
12:27 and thought into, um, making this recommendation, um, but not knowing
12:34 exactly how the sands would shift under our feet, uh, with that.
12:37 So I just want to be clear about that in that I would tend to agree
12:42 with a lot of the points raised by them about how ranked choice
12:45 voting as a tool, um, you know, can lead to more, uh, civic
12:51 dialogue rather than, uh, candidates attacking each other.
12:53 We saw that in New York, uh, with the mayoral race there.
12:57 Um, it can lead to by reducing, not having the primary, it can,
13:01 we, um, it can reduce costs, both the municipality and to candidates,
13:05 which can allow for a more diverse group of candidates to run.
13:09 Um, it gives people the opportunity to obviously rank their choices
13:14 so that, you know, you don't have to think, Oh, am I throwing my
13:16 vote away on this candidate?
13:18 That might be a long shot because you still got your choices.
13:20 So there's, I, as a concept, I'm a big supporter of ranked choice voting.
13:25 Um, but, and, uh, vice president Baker don't feel bad about, I, I put
13:29 these all together because I find it easier when we're talking about
13:32 these things, if you say, do you support this, it's, what is this?
13:36 Um, is this ranked choice voting as a concept?
13:38 Is it this specific, um, legislative strategy?
13:44 So, um, that's why I spent the time out of mostly respect
13:48 for all the time the charter review commission put in, um, to make sure
13:52 that we really have thoughtful dialogue about this, um, and because
13:56 it does potentially, uh, our decision affects not only the other charter
14:00 amendments, um, but it also, you know, as you mentioned, the
14:04 potential for litigation, other council members, uh, councilman Evans.
14:11 Um, I agree with so much stuff that's been said for my
14:15 colleagues up here, um, to this point.
14:17 Probably, uh, I'm leaning slightly different than, uh, councilman Baker
14:21 more to the men in the charter, um, putting it to the voters.
14:25 Um, cause you're right.
14:26 I do trust our voters.
14:27 This is an important moment in time.
14:29 And I understand there's any number of risks in the table, but this
14:33 is one of those moments where I completely agree it's just, it's so
14:38 aggravating that we're a home rule states and not allowed to like
14:42 municipalities are not allowed to act in that way.
14:44 And, um, this is, I feel that it's just kind of putting a
14:47 foot down moment for me.
14:49 Um, and I'm happy to have this dialogue.
14:51 Um, but, um, I just see where this goes and interested to hear
14:56 all my, my colleagues.
15:00 The council members, council members.
15:03 Um, yes, I am absolutely in agreement with rank choice voting.
15:09 And I don't know that frustration captures how I feel about, um, um,
15:17 this legislation that that's coming out of the state.
15:20 You think of a couple other words that I'll be happy to
15:24 share with you at another time.
15:26 Um, I think they've tied our hands again and I can't see us moving
15:35 forward with anything that could risk any of the financial aspects of this city.
15:46 Um, having said that I appreciate the efforts in the consideration
15:53 president couple of, of putting, um, processes in place so that if that
16:01 was ever changed that we could then act on that, but I think that this
16:04 council could always then act on that.
16:07 And I think that if we were to go forward with putting anything in place,
16:12 they would just come after us again.
16:15 And without the support of other cities or other organizations, and I'm
16:22 hoping that there's going to be some national pressure, uh, somewhere from,
16:26 from national organizations, but to go after this on our own.
16:32 I don't know that, that that's wise.
16:34 Thank you, president couple.
16:41 And thank you for all your legwork you did with this.
16:43 Um, you know, I, I do want to concur that, that I, I do see, um, the
16:49 value of rank choice voting.
16:51 And I think one of my favorite parts about it is it has the opportunity
16:54 to increase voter engagement, voter turnout from multiple angles.
16:58 Um, one being by eliminating the need for multiple elections, you're
17:02 therefore encouraging better turnout at your primary election or your
17:06 general election and two being that, um, as some others have said that
17:11 because your, um, your vote will feel like it matters more and there's
17:15 less, um, of this mindset that you're, you're wasting a vote that,
17:20 that too should incentivize people to vote.
17:22 So I, I like how it has multiple layers of, um, encouraging
17:26 higher voter turnout.
17:28 Um, and, and to your point, president couple, I also see real
17:31 value in that it encourages more civil campaigning and that's, um, that
17:37 that's been born out in a, in, um, in other places where it's, it's
17:41 already in place where, um, you know, because, you know, if, if,
17:45 if second is a viable outcome, then there's less of this inclination
17:52 from politicians to, you know, um, go scorched earth and, um, on an
17:56 opponent and so, you know, I, I see value all around for rank choice
18:01 Um, I, I don't know what the right solution is.
18:04 I, I, I see, um, the, the options that I see appealing in a variety
18:09 of the options, um, but I, I do also, at the end of the day, I
18:12 realized that, um, our, you know, assessment of risk is, is certainly
18:16 a, a strong consideration here as well.
18:18 So, um, I guess what I'm trying to say is I, I'm, I'm, I'm a
18:22 supporter of rank choice voting, um, but I, I'd be lying if I said
18:25 I knew what was the right option here right now.
18:32 Um, so that's my book.
18:36 Thanks, madam chair.
18:36 Um, couple of thoughts.
18:38 The, um, so, um, there's kind of the substance of, of rank choice
18:44 voting in the process, um, that we're, we're kind of stuck in
18:50 right now, um, and I, I'm trying to like, make a little chart for
18:55 myself to organize my thoughts.
18:56 So first of all, I want to, um, thank and respect some members
18:59 of the public who spent a lot of time with me afterwards, such that
19:02 we turn off the lights ourselves.
19:05 Uh, and that's, um, Chris Bindel, Barb, I think it's Michelle and
19:10 then Dean, my friend whom I also appointed to the charter commission,
19:16 uh, is a big believer in a very thoughtful discussant.
19:19 So I respect, um, your views in the time you're putting into
19:24 educate me, I also, it sounds like some, some of my colleagues feel
19:28 very passionately about this and I want to respect that.
19:31 I guess I'd like to just share my thoughts without emotion or
19:36 politics, just straight up.
19:38 Here's kind of where my, my thinking is first, um, of the arguments
19:42 in favor of rank choice, whether the two that seem strongest to
19:45 me would be, uh, increase civility.
19:49 And if it's, if it bears out increased voter turnout, I could
19:53 see how that could be the case.
19:55 Wonders is that for sure the known, like, will those sales pitches
20:01 uh, actually bear out?
20:02 I would be hopeful, but I guess I'd like to study that a little bit more.
20:07 Um, I'm, uh, also a little con little C conservative or cautious
20:12 about charter changes in the, in the sense that what we're proposing
20:16 is to introduce a process reform as part of the charter that could
20:19 have side effects or unknown effects.
20:22 I remember, uh, term limits and similar process, uh, similar process
20:27 changes like biennial budgeting or zero based budgeting or the line item
20:31 veto, these were 1980s, 1990s process reforms, some are voting, some are
20:38 not that were hoped to be silver bullets to fix problems with our
20:45 entrenched political system, worthy efforts, but I'm not sure that
20:49 any one of them alone, you know, has really worked in, in, in term limits
20:54 are notorious in kind of adding problems as many as you removed.
21:01 Um, so now I think that's a subjective argument that I'm putting
21:05 forward, others would argue right in the verse.
21:08 So part of me wonders is would we be introducing an unknown with
21:13 good intentions that could then basically change the game theory of
21:18 voting and have a sideways effect that we don't anticipate and because
21:24 we're talking about the charter, which is the highest table stakes
21:28 or the highest anti possible, you know, I, I advocate all the time
21:32 for sustainability or different issues like safe walking to school.
21:36 So for sure I fight for the values that I, um, uh, believe in.
21:43 And also I hear from my residents.
21:44 So it's very legitimate for us to put forward, you know, concepts and proposals
21:50 that we believe in and we think would do good.
21:53 The highest scrutiny though, is the charter change, right?
21:56 So part of what I'd like to see is, is more extensive support in the
22:01 community about this pretty arcane process change.
22:06 I know that there are respectful, thoughtful, um, well read mem, you
22:12 know, a group of leaders in our community put this forward, but I, I, I don't think
22:17 that it's an issue that's come up when I'm talking to voters at the park or a
22:21 block party or door knocking or something like that.
22:23 They're, they're worried about other things, not this one.
22:26 Now that doesn't mean they couldn't, but I feel a little cautious about
22:30 me recommending to all Lakewood voters that we should for sure change the
22:36 It would be a lower bar for me if it was an ordinance or a resolution,
22:39 which as others have pointed out, it's precisely the avenue that the state
22:44 has handcuffed us on.
22:47 So I like Councilman Bickenside, I don't have a solution there, but, um,
22:54 so, you know, I, I also agree that we shouldn't be risking our budget.
23:00 I think the severability, I think on paper would fix that.
23:05 I'm cautious though about antagonizing or dancing on the line.
23:11 I'm remembering my days as a minor league baseball clubhouse manager and the
23:16 batting coaches, when the, they'd get in a spat with the umpire, the umpire
23:20 would say, stay on that side of the line and they would, but they'd put
23:22 their toe over the line and they would never put the foot down, but they
23:26 would have fun with the umpire a little bit.
23:29 Are we doing that as a city?
23:30 If we're, you know, if we're engaging in this direct conflict, now
23:35 the state should not be doing this.
23:37 And also I think the state is getting into a partisan battle
23:42 because of an Alaska outcome.
23:45 This is a non-partisan change, but it's become a partisan, um, fight.
23:50 And, and the, the, the political parties in fairness, both political
23:56 parties love to get into food fights.
23:58 And this has now enveloped this issue as well.
24:02 Um, so I'm also meandering a little bit.
24:07 I guess that as a board of elections official here, I get one question would
24:10 be if we were to move into this territory, how might we be prepared
24:17 with our county board of elections to be successful now or in the
24:21 future is one question, um, to me, the biggest thing to get me to a
24:27 strong yes would be if, if we have a little bit more community
24:31 dialogue and a broader concentric circle, and we've had the opportunity
24:34 to do to date, so, um, with respect to my colleagues and the citizens,
24:39 I hope that's been a transparent and clear, um, if long winded statement.
24:48 Um, so touching on that, um, in terms of the community dialogue, I
24:53 think is a key component here.
24:56 So just thinking through, um, you know, a lot of what I end up doing is
25:02 keeping trains running and making sure we're so as we keep communicating
25:05 that the deadline for these, um, any of the amendments that we do want
25:10 to put to voters for the November election is September 5th.
25:14 So we, and as we discussed the last council meeting, we're planning
25:17 to go on recess in August, which means we would need to have any
25:21 of these amendments completed, um, the actual language done and passed
25:25 by two thirds of this body by the last meeting in July or call
25:31 Um, so, which, um, may be challenging to do with everybody's schedules.
25:37 So working backwards from that, we really don't have very many more
25:40 meetings, um, because we would, the next time we could have community
25:44 the whole, um, most likely would be, it wouldn't be till June 15th.
25:50 Um, and then we'd only have a few weeks to work on this.
25:55 So, um, so just thinking backwards from that, the other thing is,
26:02 So, uh, to councilman book's point about what would need to happen.
26:07 So whatever amendments we put forward, I would expect that we
26:11 would want, certainly want to work to make sure the public understands
26:14 what those amendments do.
26:16 Um, but with this, when we have the extra level of potentially needed
26:21 to explain what rank choice voting is.
26:23 So, um, to councilman bullock's point, um, you know, we may not
26:27 have broad members of the public clamoring for rank choice voting
26:31 at this time, but they tell us about it in other ways, right?
26:34 It's like, they don't necessarily, um, a lot of members of the
26:37 public don't realize that, um, I'm sure there's still plenty of people
26:41 that the members of the public don't realize that the Supreme Court
26:43 has gutted the voting rights act, but they are sure going to care
26:46 when their communities are affected and that they won't necessarily
26:50 know what the voting rights act did or would do before it was passed.
26:54 Um, but, uh, we're certainly affected by that and, um, you
26:59 know, their, their voice is being heard.
27:00 So there, I don't think, you know, I wouldn't say that rank
27:03 choice voting is the silver bullet solution that will solve
27:06 all of our problems, but doesn't mean that we don't try to make
27:10 Um, but we do, but it is a lift that we folks, a lot of folks
27:16 don't know really what it is, how it works.
27:18 You know, we've gone through how many meetings for this body
27:21 to become more educated on it.
27:24 Um, and then there would be explaining the specific charter
27:28 The other concern I have is with options one, two, or three,
27:34 um, well, particularly if we go what the charter view commission
27:41 recommended, um, which was a sleek solution to try to work around.
27:46 Um, but if we were to put that on the ballot and then the
27:50 voters adopt it, and then it's, it's being their, their will
27:56 to have ranked choice voting is being blocked by this body rather
27:59 than by the state house, which is really the entity that is
28:02 blocking their, um, their choice.
28:05 So that could cause both confusion and frustration, um, and put us just
28:10 right back where we would have to choose between listening to the
28:14 will of the voters, um, and threatening local funding, um, or
28:19 threatening local funding.
28:20 So it is a very unfortunate and extremely frustrating and, uh,
28:27 whatever word Councilwoman Shrevegg was thinking of more than
28:30 frustrating, um, situation that the state house has put us in.
28:34 Um, so with that, I know we do have some members of the public
28:38 that wanted to speak on this, so I want to make sure we have
28:40 time to hear from them.
28:42 Um, did any other council members want to comment on any
28:45 more on this at this time?
28:49 Um, I just, uh, would like to, uh, ask if, uh, director
28:53 Perlotti of the board of elections, uh, could come up and
28:56 I think the information that he has is, uh, I think would be
29:00 very helpful for the public, for council members to understand
29:03 what sort of implementation would look like from the
29:06 board of elections.
29:07 So he's with us here today.
29:10 Um, director Perlotti is entitled to his five minutes.
29:19 You push the button so it turns green and we can hear.
29:27 Uh, hello, I am, uh, Tony Perlotti, director of the
29:29 Cuyahoga County board of elections and good evening.
29:33 And I just want to make a few comments about rank choice voting.
29:37 Um, the board of elections, Cuyahoga County board of elections
29:39 is not for or against rank choice voting.
29:42 We will try to conduct, uh, what is required of us, but I do want
29:47 everyone to understand that, um, Cuyahoga County as well as the
29:52 other 87 counties don't conduct rank choice elections now.
29:56 We're not familiar with them and our equipment currently as is
30:01 can't conduct that election.
30:03 So, um, we need to get software updates and, uh, our voting
30:09 systems are certified systems.
30:11 So the tabulation system, the scanners you use at the poll places,
30:15 the ADA machines, what we use to lay out the ballot, tabulate the ballot.
30:19 That's your election management system.
30:22 That's certified equipment that needs to go through and be certified
30:25 by the secretary of state's office.
30:27 Now, Cuyahoga, we use a product called clear ballot and they do conduct
30:32 rank choice elections and other states.
30:36 Um, they just did recently go for a certification and it looks like
30:41 there may be the ability with this equipment that we could in
30:45 the future implement, however, it would come with a cost because
30:49 it's not something that's included and we don't know what that cost is.
30:53 So that would have to be purchased.
30:55 Um, through the vendor in which that cost may be passed on to the
30:59 municipality as it'd be the only one using that.
31:03 Um, there are a lot of unknowns with rank choice voting, um, with
31:07 current law in the secretary of state directives that would have to be
31:11 answered and those that have to be answered either through the
31:13 legislature or through the secretary of state's office, such as on
31:19 election night, we post the unofficial results.
31:21 Those don't include provisional ballots or valid post-election absentee
31:26 ballots that we're able to count.
31:28 Those get certified in the official certification, which is 21 days later.
31:33 So my assumption is, um, when we certified 21 days later, what we would
31:37 be certifying in a rank choice is the first round results, not
31:42 ultimately who had won because at that point we would have all the
31:45 ballots potentially that would be in play the provisionals of post
31:50 Then we would have to engage on the process of, um, eliminating and
31:55 adding and going through that process.
31:57 The state would need to answer for us too.
31:59 At what point do, um, recounts come into that?
32:03 Is it after we certified the first round or is it anywhere later on
32:07 things that we don't know that we can't answer.
32:09 So we would have to get those things answered.
32:13 The other thing that we would hope to have is a long runway to implement.
32:18 So a little bit of chatter that we've heard from other communities is that
32:22 you need a few years to get people educated up.
32:25 So for example, in a multiple vote for which Lakewood currently has for at large.
32:31 Now you just pick the three individuals you want in rank choice.
32:34 You actually have to pick who you want first, who you want second,
32:38 who you want third, our understanding is if you put all three as your first
32:42 choice, that's an overboat.
32:44 And so if you go to the polls on election day, your battle
32:47 get kicked back and you can remake that.
32:50 But if you vote that way and you send it in by mail, that contest won't count.
32:54 So that person doesn't get another chance to do that with extensive training.
32:59 Hopefully you get voters up to speed.
33:01 So they understand that the other thing we would have to consider
33:05 too is layout of the ballot.
33:07 Rank choice is a grid.
33:08 We currently don't do that.
33:10 We're required to put the instructions on the ballot for how you vote.
33:14 So with the rank choice ballot, if there was other items and I go back,
33:19 I think to last year's Lakewood ballot, you'd have one ballot sheet that would
33:22 handle the rank choice contest that you would have cause it have those
33:27 instructions, then I think we have to go to a new sheet, a new side and
33:31 relist instructions on how to vote.
33:34 For example, on the issue, because it has different rules.
33:36 And so you need to be clear to the voters in that regard.
33:40 The bigger, the thing is you could potentially push to a multi-page ballot.
33:44 And there is a cost associated with that.
33:46 It gets passed on to the, to Lakewood.
33:50 And so we want to make sure that some of those things are known.
33:55 I think that there is this ability to do things differently, but we don't
34:02 know how to do these things at this point, we can't answer all those things
34:07 because we need either legislative action or secretary state directive
34:10 to help us get that clarity.
34:12 And I think at the start, it causes more confusion than not,
34:16 but eventually they get it.
34:17 And that's where that long runway of education on Lakewood, educating
34:21 their voters, how this works and how they'll be voting in two different
34:25 ways, depending on whether it's a rank choice or not, that needs to happen.
34:33 And I appreciate you being here.
34:35 Madam chair, if I could ask a couple of questions of director Peralati.
34:40 Can you talk a little bit about the software and what would be needed to get
34:47 the software costs associated?
34:50 So for our software, we would have to reach out to clear ballot, our
34:54 vendor, get pricing on what would it take to get the software to put on
34:58 the main management system, to be able to lay out the ballot, tagulate
35:02 the ballot, then also what, if any firmware changes would have to happen
35:06 to the individual scanners, because the scanners have another piece of software
35:11 that goes on to be able to read those ballot markings because it would be laid
35:17 out a little bit differently from your traditional pattern that we have now.
35:21 So those are costs that the vendor, they haven't given us those costs.
35:25 We would have to work with them to see what they are, as well as if
35:28 there's anything that we would have to do results reporting wise to be able
35:33 to report, I guess we could do who got the most votes and those types of things.
35:42 But I don't understand how, what other would have to happen.
35:46 I don't know how you do that because you are reporting, I think, different
35:49 items and I don't know how that would work.
35:52 So we would have to get their clarity.
35:55 They, like I said, they do one or two jurisdictions, but not a lot.
35:58 And who would be responsible for paying those costs?
36:01 I believe we would pass those costs on to the municipality.
36:06 And then can you talk a little bit about how the ballot would be laid out?
36:14 You know, school board is my understanding would be, is dictated through state law.
36:20 So that would be separate from any sort of council, mayor, judge.
36:23 Can you talk a little bit about how that would work?
36:26 So for your, and that's kind of where I tried to hit on a little bit about
36:29 the layout of the ballot.
36:30 So the, the state, the secretary of state tells us the order in which the
36:37 contests appear on the ballot and that's how we have to present them.
36:40 So, and it rotates through different years and how we do things through
36:46 the secretary of state's office.
36:47 So you have to have the instructions for how you vote to the contest.
36:52 So for a school board, it would have how it reads.
36:55 Now you have that first column where it gives you your instructions
36:58 and how you vote that ballot.
37:01 And then you have your contest that would apply to that.
37:04 So then if you came across your rank choice, which is a grid, we would, um,
37:09 start then on a new page, have a new set of instructions that would be laid
37:13 out for how you mark your ballot in the rank choice environment.
37:18 So it would then have that page and you'd have that, um, contest.
37:23 And then let's say that you go back then to an issue, you
37:27 then may need to revert back another page, have the instructions again,
37:31 and then have that contest there.
37:34 So that was where, again, we would need clarity from the secretary
37:38 of state's office, but that, I think the intent is you have the
37:41 instructions, then this is how you vote on it.
37:44 And when that changes, you need to put new instructions and then that,
37:48 and then if it goes back again, because if you go from candidate to a
37:51 different type of candidate selection method and then to issues, you
37:55 need to clarify that.
37:57 And I think that would happen on a fresh side of a sheet each
38:02 time to not have confusion.
38:04 I think that's the only way you could do it as the instructions do
38:08 take not the entirety, but most of the first column on the ballot.
38:13 So that then can push, say from, we call it a ballot sheet, ballot pages
38:18 aside, so one sheet is two pages.
38:21 It could go then from, for example, from a one sheet, two page to a two
38:27 sheet, three page ballot.
38:30 So then that extra sheet, then again, there's a cost with that.
38:33 We use a third party vendor to print, and then we get charged
38:36 for each ballot sheet that we use.
38:39 So we would need to have that to have less confusion for the
38:43 voters by making sure that all the appropriate instructions are there
38:46 to correspond with those contests that follow after it.
38:51 My final question is what happens to the ballots that someone doesn't
38:57 fill out correctly with your example?
39:00 They don't rank or they forget to rank.
39:02 What happens with those ballots?
39:06 It depends on if the voting is completed on election day or early
39:12 in person versus voting by mail.
39:15 When you use a ballot scanner early in person or at the polls on
39:19 election day, you have what the second chance voting is, and so this is
39:24 where if you overvote, currently if you were to overvote a contest, you
39:28 put that in, the machine will say you overvoted and it will tell you
39:31 what the contest is, and then it asks you the question, do you want
39:34 to accept the ballot as marked or do you want it to be returned to
39:40 which then you can go soil your ballot and get a new ballot?
39:44 So at the polls and early in person, you have that opportunity
39:48 An undervote, that just gets taken into the machine.
39:52 It doesn't give the voter the opportunity to do that.
39:56 In a vote by mail environment, there is no machine that the voter uses.
40:01 It's our central count system down at the board, and so when we have
40:05 a overvote that happens, that gets noted and that then just gets
40:12 removed from consideration in the tabulation, so if you have five
40:15 things on the ballot, one thing is overvoted, the one item is not
40:19 counted, the other four do get tabulated and that's what we report.
40:23 So in a rank choice environment, I think if you don't mark everything,
40:30 that would probably, I'm assuming, be an undervote, which would go through.
40:34 But I think as soon as you put two marks in the same column,
40:38 whether you want two people as your first choice, second choice,
40:41 that now becomes an overvote because you can only have one indication in that
40:46 column, so then that would not get counted, and I think what would take
40:51 voters the longest is the vote for more than one, where now you don't
40:56 have to rank who you want on that vote for more than one.
41:01 If I like three of you equally, then I mark all of you.
41:03 In that situation, you can't do that anymore.
41:06 Who do I like the best, who do I like second, third, like in Lakewood,
41:10 it's a vote for three, you have to do that.
41:12 If they put, happen to put two people in that first column or second column,
41:16 that's an overvote, that won't count.
41:17 So it's a matter of education, getting people to understand that,
41:24 and there's nothing you can do because once that ballot comes,
41:27 we get it, we take it out of the identification envelope,
41:30 we remove the stub, it's neutral, we don't know who it is anymore,
41:32 and then it goes in the scanner, and then at that point, we know.
41:35 So again, that's where the long runway, if you're going to do something
41:39 like that, is to help educate people, especially since they may be
41:43 flip-flopping between different contests that are laid out on the ballot.
41:54 Any other questions from council members for Director Prelati?
42:00 So thanks, Director Prelati, for being here and for the detail.
42:05 It's helpful to think this through.
42:07 Sounds like there's a fair bit of complexity.
42:12 I expect you're going to say no to the following,
42:14 but if the county changed it countywide, would that
42:21 make it more efficient and cheaper by the dozen, so to speak,
42:25 or the county would not be able to affect all of the local elections?
42:31 I think you're going to tell me.
42:33 So just for clarity, a county charter, if that charter were to adopt
42:39 rank choice voting, then that cost, I think, would be born across
42:42 the jurisdictions that utilize it, and the county being countywide.
42:47 And that would apply to which?
42:51 The challenge is probably only going to apply to county offices,
42:55 but not local school districts, local courts, and municipal governments.
43:00 No, because like Lakewood, Cuyahoga County, the executive, the council,
43:04 that's a charter government.
43:06 So the commissioners are statutory, they're chartered.
43:09 Would it be a little less confusing in Lakewood's example if the at-large,
43:13 which are pick three, pick your top three,
43:15 which is a good point you've raised that I didn't think about,
43:19 were not pick three in one pool, but three separate seats that you'd vote for
43:24 in a siloed manner, a little bit like for courts of common pleas,
43:27 judges you're voting for, not a pool, but this seat, this seat, this seat,
43:32 and then you have a zero-sum game for each of those different seats.
43:38 That would then at least make the ballot complexity and the game theory
43:43 of the voter's choice a little less involved, right?
43:47 What I think in that scenario, those now become three separate contests
43:51 in which candidates would have to submit petitions for a particular office.
43:58 So where common pleas judges, they are going with,
44:01 a lot of those have a one-day off commencement date.
44:04 It would be the same thing.
44:05 So let's say you had the three at-large, but those are three contests.
44:10 You are now submitting petition paperwork, we'll just say for at-large A,
44:16 and then people who want to run against that are doing that.
44:19 They would not be able to run for at-large B.
44:22 That would be another separate filing with a different person,
44:25 and maybe different candidates want to go.
44:26 So it wouldn't be, you would have three distinct sets,
44:32 it would be three different offices.
44:33 It would be just as if you were voting for the wards.
44:37 Even though they're elected, they would be elected at-large amongst the whole city,
44:41 but each one would be an independent contest that would have independent candidates,
44:46 and a candidate wouldn't be able to apply for more than one of those offices.
44:51 What's interesting, and that doesn't exist today,
44:53 but your discussion prompted that thought.
44:58 One of the merits in favor of rank choice voting is the potential to increase voter turnout.
45:04 It sounds, though, that there's a risk that the complexity would be a barrier for some
45:10 until there was a pretty significant investment and acclamation period of several years
45:19 so that the overvote problem and the confusion doesn't become a barrier.
45:24 I'm sure other jurisdictions have done it, but these are things to think about.
45:33 Just one more observation.
45:34 I think the traditional notion that voters sit elections out because they're disaffected
45:39 because all elected officials and all government is a negative thing, why would I bother?
45:46 I'm not sure that that's a factor for local municipal elections.
45:50 Maybe I'm fooling myself, but that's typically for governor and higher office levels.
45:57 The challenge for us to get voter turnout for the city is just,
46:00 hey, pay attention in general.
46:02 I don't know that people are typically failing to vote
46:05 in their municipal election because of disaffection.
46:09 It's a good sentiment, but it seems as if we'd be adding complexity that we'd need to
46:18 responsibly position ourselves to overcome if we were to have a new way of voting here.
46:28 Anyway, I appreciate the detail.
46:30 I'm learning as we go here.
46:33 I'm thinking out loud that's probably a dangerous habit.
46:37 I'm not sure the data actually bears out about the overvotes,
46:41 but it's neither here nor there at this moment since we haven't decided we're
46:48 I did want to ask Director Prelati in terms of actual data rather than
46:53 the... What is the cost of adding a sheet to a ballot?
47:02 What does each sheet cost?
47:04 I would have to get back to you with that actual cost.
47:10 How much does a primary election cost?
47:15 The way that we bill elections is on a precinct basis.
47:20 And so it's $3,000 a precinct is what the general cost is.
47:29 That then gets impacted by the participation rate in vote by mail,
47:36 whereas we print a set amount of ballots for the polls,
47:40 the vote by mail is printed on an ongoing as requested basis.
47:45 So that impacts as well as our goal is to hire four poll workers per precinct.
47:51 Depending on what the election is and how excited people are,
47:56 it can either be difficult or easy to get that.
47:59 And so, for example, this past May, I think we were only able to get
48:05 3.3 workers per precinct on average.
48:08 So that brought down cost a little bit.
48:10 So it all depends, but then in a better...
48:14 This November, we'll probably be able to hit that mark.
48:17 So there's some things like that that impact the cost.
48:22 But on general, the formula that we go through, a Secretary of State's worksheet,
48:28 it bears out to be like $3,000 per precinct.
48:33 I should know this, but how many precincts are in liquid?
48:37 If I went in my homework, I couldn't know the answer to that.
48:40 Our longest serving council member just said 37.
48:42 So I'm going to take his word for that.
48:49 I don't have any other questions at this time.
48:51 Do any other council members have questions for Director Pallardi
48:53 before we get to hewing from residents?
49:00 And I'll just add, too, in terms of the conversation around runway,
49:05 I just pulled up, I think they're slightly different
49:07 just because they were drafted at different times,
49:09 but ordinance 21, 2026, which is the one with the...
49:15 Where it's adopted directly by charter would not go into effect
49:19 until the January 2029 election.
49:22 So there would be significant time.
49:25 So on this topic, let me...
49:29 I don't have my sheet, but I can see people.
49:32 So I'm assuming Chris Bindle would like to speak on this.
49:35 Is that an accurate assumption?
49:44 Push your button so you're on.
49:46 I'm going to turn it off.
49:47 Thank you for making the point about the primary
49:49 because that was top of mind to me.
49:51 So 37 precincts, around 3,000 each,
49:54 we're looking north of $100,000 for a primary,
49:57 unless I did my math wrong.
49:59 So I somehow don't think that's going to...
50:02 overtake how much it is to print an extra page per ballot.
50:06 I think we're pretty good on that.
50:08 Likewise, talking about the added costs
50:11 to upgrade the system and things like that,
50:13 it'll be a big maybe upfront cost.
50:17 But again, if we're saving $100,000
50:20 from a primary every year or two,
50:23 I think that'll help eat out that cost pretty quickly.
50:26 As for not being familiar with rank choice voting,
50:33 I don't think that's a great excuse for us
50:36 to not move forward and make progress.
50:39 Let's educate ourselves and learn how to do these things
50:43 if we think it's going to make things better.
50:46 Also, there are other communities that have...
50:51 There are other places that do this.
50:53 So we have plenty of people that we can ask
50:55 how they run their elections.
50:57 Let's not just say it's too difficult, we can't do it.
51:00 Let's get the information.
51:05 As far as error ballots,
51:08 there are error ballots in every single election.
51:10 That's not something that you're ever going to get rid of.
51:14 Yeah, it might be slightly more confusing
51:17 for people who are starting with these new ballots.
51:19 But as far as having different instructions on one ballot,
51:23 most of us have taken surveys.
51:25 And on surveys, there is more than one way
51:27 you have to answer a question.
51:28 Each page or whatever question gives you the explanation
51:32 of how you're supposed to answer that question.
51:35 People can do that.
51:36 Is there going to be confusion?
51:37 Maybe there will be, but there's confusion now.
51:39 So you're not going to ever eliminate it.
51:42 Again, it's not an excuse to avoid progress.
51:49 As far as the certification goes,
51:52 like the 21 days later, I don't think that's first round
51:55 because once again, we have places all over the country
51:57 and the world who are doing this
51:59 who give same-night results like we do all other elections.
52:03 So now, just like now,
52:06 the elections we have, those are unofficial.
52:08 So with Ranked Choice Voting,
52:10 you're still giving unofficial numbers that day.
52:15 But they usually, like today, are still pretty accurate
52:20 once you add in all the other provisional ballots
52:23 and things like that.
52:24 So I don't think that's a good argument.
52:28 Stepping back from that and going back
52:30 to your conversation at the start.
52:37 Sorry, I have to look back at my notes
52:39 because I was distracted by the other points.
52:43 I appreciate you adding the options three and four as well.
52:48 Those are good things to also consider.
52:51 Going back to option one,
52:52 I think there was a little confusion
52:54 in a conversation up there that like option one
52:57 and three are not exactly the same
52:59 because option one, if passed,
53:02 we have Ranked Choice Voting.
53:04 It's not until the state amends the current law
53:08 that we no longer have Ranked Choice Voting.
53:10 Now, as conversations have been had,
53:13 that is a high probability to happen.
53:16 That being said, we have the severability clause
53:19 to protect us, but also,
53:21 that will bring a lot of discussion.
53:23 I think if that were to happen,
53:25 I think that would be a statewide discussion
53:27 of like the state is specifically attacking this city
53:31 because they want to have Ranked Choice Voting.
53:33 And I think that is a reasonable thing to do.
53:36 We'll still be protected by the severability clause,
53:39 but I think it's also important to show
53:41 that we're standing up for what we believe in.
53:42 That being said, I think if we have to,
53:51 if we are really scared about how that will play out,
53:57 I think option four, maybe giving us some more time
54:00 seeing how things play out in November.
54:02 We can have further discussions.
54:05 Do the education piece a lot more thoroughly.
54:08 Right now, we've done some at like community events,
54:11 but we do need to have some good forums
54:14 to educate the public on what Ranked Choice Voting is
54:16 and what the impact will be in Lakewood.
54:18 I think that is important and could really help us.
54:26 As for option two, personally, not a big fan.
54:30 Not just because it will not work with SB 63,
54:36 but also because it could confuse people
54:40 and no offense, I don't want this decision
54:43 in the hand of the council.
54:44 It's supposed to be in the hand of the people.
54:46 That's the whole point of having a charter review
54:49 and having the people vote on this.
54:52 It's not for you to make decisions how we vote.
54:55 It's for the people to decide.
54:57 So I'd prefer that we do one of those
54:59 that actually puts it into our charter.
55:01 So going back to option one, if it does happen
55:11 that they change the law after we pass it on the books
55:17 and for some reason there is litigation,
55:19 whether we want to pursue it or whatever.
55:22 We do have national partners that exist
55:25 to help in those situations.
55:27 And they are looking for those situations.
55:31 I'm not saying we should be seeking
55:33 to get into a legal fight.
55:35 But I don't think that should be
55:38 the only reason to avoid this.
55:46 At one point somebody said something about
55:51 who asked for this.
55:53 And you brought up a bunch of people
55:57 from the community into a charter review committee
55:59 and asked them what should we do?
56:00 What should we change about the city?
56:02 And they said that this was something
56:04 that they were interested in.
56:05 So you did ask someone and they presented this idea.
56:15 I think that covers pretty much what I had.
56:17 So thank you for your time.
56:23 Dean Jackson, you want to come up?
56:26 I don't have the sign up sheet
56:27 but I'm assuming that knowing.
56:30 I'm as surprised to be here as anyone.
56:34 Thank you so much, members of council,
56:36 members of the administration, director Pirlati.
56:39 First, I'd like to congratulate the state of Ohio
56:41 on yet another victory against home rule.
56:45 I'm as frustrated as you are
56:47 with the legislature in Columbus.
56:50 I want to speak for myself
56:53 as a member of the Charter Review Commission
56:55 and say that when we made this recommendation,
56:58 we were operating in the strategic context of SB,
57:03 very much being debated,
57:05 very much part of the conversation,
57:08 not yet political fact.
57:10 But the reason we made the recommendation
57:13 to give this power to council
57:16 through a charter amendment
57:18 was because of this possibility
57:20 of losing local funds.
57:21 That was our tactic to try and circumvent that.
57:25 I think if you went back and asked my colleagues
57:29 and I can't speak for them
57:30 but I'd encourage you to have
57:32 your own private conversations
57:33 with those of them you can contact.
57:35 Many of them would say they're agnostic
57:39 and I certainly am agnostic to the mechanism
57:41 by which we pursue this
57:43 or at least create a doorway
57:45 through which we could pursue this in the future.
57:48 The concern is having a path
57:51 to see whether this is something
57:52 the community wants
57:54 while also not losing local funds.
57:56 And if it makes sense
57:58 to wait for a better strategic environment,
58:02 we have, by the grace of God,
58:04 a competitive election
58:05 in the state of Ohio this year
58:06 and perhaps we will have a new secretary
58:09 of state one way or the other.
58:12 Things maybe look different in 2027.
58:14 Likewise, if we wanted to pass something
58:17 with a sort of escape hatch clause built into
58:19 Councilman Baker's point,
58:20 I think it would be really reasonable
58:21 to build something like a two-year runway.
58:26 If this law is repealed,
58:27 then Lakewood shall institute ranked choice voting
58:32 in the next presidential election
58:37 unless that's within one year
58:38 and then the next presidential election after that.
58:41 You could, with elegant language
58:43 and a little bit more time than I have right now,
58:45 come up with a way to do that.
58:47 There's ways to delay this tactically, I think.
58:52 Nothing I heard from Director Perlotti was a no.
58:56 There's an upfront investment in a software upgrade.
58:59 There are some questions about ballot language,
59:02 some things about certification
59:03 that need to get worked out
59:04 with the secretary of state.
59:05 We can learn from other states
59:06 that of course don't have the same laws
59:09 or election official manuals as we do,
59:11 but there are ways to handle this.
59:13 We're not operating in a total vacuum
59:15 and certainly possible to certify your results
59:18 since other municipalities and states
59:20 in the country manage to do it.
59:22 These seem to me to be surmountable hurdles
59:25 and I'd certainly ask public officials
59:29 and administrators not to make mountains
59:31 out of molehills when they think about pursuing this
59:35 if it is something that we pursue.
59:37 I just want to close real quickly.
59:40 I'm going to quote our state senator,
59:42 Nikki Antonio, who was initially
59:45 of course quite skeptical of rank choice voting
59:47 but seems to have come around to it.
59:48 She said that while she initially believes
59:50 that our state wasn't ready for rank choice voting,
59:52 she's listened to her constituents
59:53 who have made clear that this is the best option for them
59:56 and she's changing her previous vote
59:59 in favor of SB 62 to stand with those
1:00:01 who support rank choice voting
1:00:02 in her district and her state.
1:00:06 What I ask is that we continue this conversation,
1:00:11 not be too stuck in the way we do things now
1:00:15 to make investments to doing things better in the future
1:00:19 and that we just continue to evaluate
1:00:21 the political context as makes sense.
1:00:24 for taking this conversation seriously
1:00:26 and hearing out all of the perspectives today.
1:00:35 Thank you, President-Council, Council.
1:00:37 I'm thrilled to see Tony for live,
1:00:38 I gotta say, to paraphrase Jay-Z's song,
1:00:41 we got 99 problems in the county,
1:00:43 but the Board of Elections ain't one.
1:00:45 So you guys do a heroic job
1:00:47 and safe running on election, so thank you.
1:00:51 I'm thrilled to be having this conversation
1:00:52 because I actually did not know
1:00:53 what was gonna be talked about,
1:00:55 but I felt that this was a time
1:00:56 to be talking about the mechanics.
1:00:58 And so I have a binder for you, President Keppel,
1:01:02 and I wanted to just kind of address
1:01:04 a couple of things that Director Prelati brought up.
1:01:12 have machines that are RCP ready.
1:01:17 and we are waiting for certification.
1:01:21 the Election Assistance Commission,
1:01:25 that came out of a voting act
1:01:27 that certifies any sort of software machines,
1:01:30 all that before they even get out to the states.
1:01:37 can you speak more into the microphone?
1:01:40 The upgrade, the software upgrade,
1:01:42 was actually certified by the EAS,
1:01:46 the Election Assistance Commission,
1:01:48 at the federal level on 11-19-25.
1:01:53 So that's gone through that hurdle.
1:01:54 That's what we need in Cuyahoga County.
1:01:55 We need that upgrade software.
1:01:57 The county occasionally has to upgrade anyway,
1:01:59 so that's not something new,
1:02:01 but there is a huge education piece with it.
1:02:09 something called the Board of Voting Systems Examiners
1:02:15 to start reviewing the clear ballot upgrade.
1:02:17 Now, whether or not they got to it,
1:02:19 we don't know because that's a closed meeting,
1:02:21 but it was on their agenda in January of this year,
1:02:25 because that is the next step,
1:02:26 and of course it has to go through the state,
1:02:28 but it has to go through this board first.
1:02:33 I pulled from a recent election in Portland.
1:02:38 They had their first RCV election in 2025,
1:02:41 but again, I think for those of you who don't know,
1:02:44 I'm with the Ranked to Vote Ohio,
1:02:45 and we were invited into this process
1:02:47 through the Charter Review Commission.
1:02:48 We did not come here to promote or advance it.
1:02:51 We came to educate and to make friends.
1:02:58 we've always maintained at Ranked to Vote Ohio
1:02:59 that it is a multi-year process,
1:03:01 that if it was passed yesterday,
1:03:03 you're looking at three, four years down the road
1:03:06 So no matter when it gets passed,
1:03:09 there's going to be this lead time
1:03:14 I brought you the budget impact for Portland
1:03:17 in their first RCV election,
1:03:19 and they started implementation in 2023 for 2024,
1:03:24 And just to give you an example,
1:03:25 for their additional ballot sheet in 2024,
1:03:33 a one-time cost was $225,000.
1:03:37 So some of the costs in this budget,
1:03:42 but compare that to the cost of a primary.
1:03:53 My understanding was that the county
1:03:54 is responsible for the cost of all elections
1:03:57 except for special elections.
1:03:59 And that cost falls to the municipality.
1:04:05 all costs would be covered by the county.
1:04:13 we can look at what they're doing.
1:04:15 I know that our election boards
1:04:17 are not allowed to collaborate with others,
1:04:20 but they certainly can do research
1:04:23 And so I think this will be helpful to you
1:04:24 to just kind of see the costs in Portland.
1:04:26 And also, which I really found,
1:04:28 one of the biggest things I keep hearing
1:04:29 about running choice voting
1:04:30 is it takes forever to get results.
1:04:36 They had certified results 12-2, December 2.
1:04:41 They had to have certified results.
1:04:43 So it is possible to do that.
1:04:45 And yes, there are all these contingencies
1:04:46 that we currently have now on our ballots,
1:04:50 it's a matter of education.
1:04:51 There's a substantial amount
1:04:52 in this budget for education.
1:04:54 But again, it's heavy towards,
1:04:57 up through your first election
1:04:58 and then it kind of wanes off after that.
1:05:04 I'm gonna leave you guys with,
1:05:06 I like this piece from Clear Ballot.
1:05:08 That's the manufacturer of our voting machines.
1:05:11 And I like it because it's really simple.
1:05:13 and for election officials.
1:05:15 So it doesn't have all the,
1:05:16 oh, it helps with this, it helps with that.
1:05:17 It just says, this is how it works.
1:05:19 And I think that even for me,
1:05:21 as someone who's dealing with this every day,
1:05:23 I like the layout, the explanation.
1:05:27 you were talking about potentially
1:05:29 a form of RCV that is proportional
1:05:36 which would be your at-large.
1:05:39 it would be a different system.
1:05:40 One other thing I'd like to say
1:05:41 is that our machines currently,
1:05:50 with both RCV and non-RCV races.
1:05:55 But it really should not cost the municipality.
1:06:00 unless you have a special election.
1:06:02 But I could be wrong on that.
1:06:05 I know he'll correct me at some point.
1:06:09 Did we have anyone else who wish to speak
1:06:21 left in Committee of the Whole.
1:06:26 for the comments on this specific topic
1:06:29 before we look at some of the others?
1:06:34 for your thoughtful comments
1:06:41 at the beginning of this Committee meeting,
1:06:44 we do have other charter amendments
1:06:48 that are still before us in Committee
1:06:50 that are connected to our decision
1:06:53 regarding rank choice voting.
1:06:58 which is the salaries of elected officials,
1:07:05 the way it is currently written in,
1:07:11 I'm going to pull up my communication
1:07:12 because I laid this all out.
1:07:13 But so if we were to eliminate the primary,
1:07:18 we would want to adjust the dates
1:07:20 I think the way it's drafted,
1:07:21 it says from the filing deadline.
1:07:27 you could leave that filing deadline,
1:07:28 would shift if there isn't a primary.
1:07:31 the Council appointment process.
1:07:36 where the Charter View Commission
1:07:39 looked at how Council vacancies are filled
1:07:45 what we've essentially been doing
1:07:47 the entire time since I've been on Council,
1:07:49 which is when we have a Council vacancy
1:07:51 that we put out a public call for applicants.
1:07:57 Sometimes we narrow down that applicant pool
1:07:59 and then do public interviews
1:08:04 So they suggest that we codify that
1:08:07 because currently the Charter says
1:08:10 but there is no process laid out
1:08:13 just to get some of those norms in place.
1:08:16 As we've seen at the federal level
1:08:18 in particular, but also in the states
1:08:20 that some things that we've thought
1:08:23 could live on forever as norms
1:08:24 have been taken advantage of.
1:08:27 So codifying them can protect
1:08:33 which is Ordinance 19-2026.
1:08:36 Since we only have about 15 minutes,
1:08:39 I thought maybe we could talk
1:08:41 a little bit more about ward redistricting
1:08:42 since we've talked about that previously
1:08:49 on how we wanted to adjust that.
1:08:52 We just need to kind of tweak the language.
1:08:56 Does that sound like a good plan?
1:09:13 the proposed Charter amendment
1:09:14 recommending that the Council appointment
1:09:22 in the manner that you described.
1:09:24 That to me seems straightforward,
1:09:31 On the redistricting proposal,
1:09:36 I think that's a good and responsible
1:09:39 spirit and letter of the law.
1:09:40 I do hear some of my colleagues
1:09:45 district lines changing in a manner that
1:09:47 then zones them out of their current seat.
1:09:52 I don't have a solution for that
1:09:54 and didn't attempt to craft one
1:10:03 that I feel pretty strongly about,
1:10:05 which would be that you'd require
1:10:07 any ward boundary to include
1:10:11 the northern and the southern
1:10:13 end of the city rather than
1:10:16 you could do four quadrants
1:10:22 So instead, what we'd be talking about
1:10:25 is if the language I'm suggesting
1:10:28 were to be included would be
1:10:29 keeping more or less the same shape
1:10:38 to then adjust for population,
1:10:40 which I think was the spirit
1:10:41 of the Charter Review Commission
1:10:46 And then I think you, Madam Chair,
1:10:50 for how that might be implemented,
1:10:59 I'm very receptive to that.
1:11:03 or even better than what we have.
1:11:06 So I remain supportive of that,
1:11:10 any comments from colleagues
1:11:31 that these three that are linked
1:11:34 depend on if we are going to
1:11:36 move forward with rank choice voting.
1:11:38 All of them except the redistricting.
1:11:41 Except for the redistricting.
1:11:51 if we don't cross that bridge first.
1:11:55 I am ready to discuss today.
1:11:58 I have read through this thoroughly.
1:12:03 shall adopt the enacted divisions
1:12:05 proposed by the Planning Commission
1:12:12 coming in and telling the voters
1:12:19 but to allow the City Council
1:12:28 to move forward with that one tonight.
1:12:51 I think is maybe a little bit.
1:12:54 You know, that's where I think
1:12:56 and I didn't see your proposed language
1:13:05 to the clerk's office as well
1:13:10 and a whole addition language
1:13:15 to strike through in section one
1:13:22 unless Council specifically finds
1:13:25 are not contiguous or compact
1:13:26 or bounded by natural boundaries
1:13:29 for equal population distribution.
1:13:33 shall place those divisions
1:13:36 The City Council takes no actions
1:13:42 The recommendation shall take effect
1:13:52 and salary recommendation provisions.
1:13:55 So it's familiar with our charter
1:14:05 I'll make that motion to amend
1:14:24 So it maintains in section one
1:14:26 so this is the redistricting
1:14:27 that the Planning Commission
1:14:31 if necessary appropriate redivisions
1:14:39 of contiguous and compact territory
1:14:41 bounded by natural boundaries
1:14:47 Oh actually that's in section one.
1:14:49 It's in section one of section two.
1:14:51 Section one of section two.
1:15:08 If City Council takes no action
1:15:13 the recommendations shall take effect
1:15:15 as if City Council had adopted them
1:15:16 by ordinance approved by the mayor.
1:15:21 So we have a motion and a second
1:15:29 at the last community home meeting
1:15:34 for redistricting right now.
1:15:44 we thought it was important
1:15:54 the ultimate responsibility
1:15:56 does come to the elected body
1:15:58 as there's more accountability there.
1:16:13 Madam Chair I've got a motion.
1:16:19 I also included the law director
1:16:24 I just got to get the screen up
1:16:27 to make sure I'm referring.
1:16:31 that I talked about would be
1:16:33 insert in new proposed 7.212
1:16:54 I don't know if somebody's got
1:17:45 is the first full paragraph
1:18:18 bounded by natural boundaries.
1:18:28 Yes section one is stricken
1:18:52 I think the clerk has another.
1:19:13 but the version we have here.
1:19:18 and that potential confusion
1:19:42 this is important enough to me
1:19:43 that I'd condition my vote on it
1:19:51 with a lot of these proposals.
1:19:59 to leave the possibility of
1:20:02 you having affluent districts
1:20:10 that doesn't think of balance
1:20:26 would serve the same function?
1:20:40 I'm willing to consider it.
1:20:44 Yeah so let's all consider that
1:20:51 to continue charter conversations
1:20:59 so that you're familiar with them
1:21:05 what things we're going to be asking them
1:21:16 committee of the whole is adjourned.