S.F. Likely to Defer Instant Runoff

San Francisco’s bid to become the largest U.S. city to hold instant runoffs in its major local elections is looking increasingly unlikely to take place this fall after a state panel’s rejection of the city’s plan for implementing the new system.

In March 2002, San Francisco voters approved a ballot initiative that would allow them to rank their top three preferences for the offices of mayor, district attorney and sheriff by the November 2003 general election. So-called ranked-choice voting would eliminate the need for the city’s usual December runoff.

But the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, which must approve any changes in the way elections are conducted in California, decided Monday that San Francisco wasn’t ready to move forward with an instant runoff because the city’s plan carried too much potential for delays and disputes.

“We’re not looking for perfection, but we are looking for conformity with state law,” said Marc Carrell, the panel’s chairman.

Under the voter-approved measure, the city was supposed to use an automated system for counting ballots and retabulating the results with the second- and third-place choices in case no candidate obtained a majority during the first round.

But San Francisco elections officials ended up proposing a partial hand count after the vendor that provides the city’s voting machines could not get federal approval for its ranked-choice software.

According to the state elections panel, however, a hand count would take too long and could create problems with candidates challenging the results.

With the city’s election office scrambling to prepare for the Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall, the panel’s verdict pretty much means that San Francisco will have to hold a traditional runoff this year, said John Arntz, San Francisco’s election director.