40% Rule Causing Problems for Bond

As Mel Westbrook told me yesterday, and as reported in the PI today (School levy passing, but bond struggles), the bond may not pass because of the requirement that 40% rule. As I understand it, the bond needs not only at 60% "yes" vote (which it is getting without a problem) but also to have more than 90,000 votes cast on that issue in total, which is 40% of the total ballots cast in the Fall 2006 election.

With absentee ballots still in the mail, the bond may get enough votes to pass eventually, but it is far from certain.

What seems odd to me is that the levy is passing without a problem, yet these votes were on the same ballot. Does that mean some people voted on one issue but not on the other? Or maybe I don't completely understand the 40% turnout rule. Anyone want to enlighten me?

Comments

Anonymous said…
The bond will validate today. Right now, it is only about 4,000 short of validating. KCE got over 9,000 ballots in the mail today, the majority of which will be for the Seattle School District No.1 vote. It should be updated at 4:30. You can check it out here:
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/200702/resPage2.htm

The reason the levy has already passed and not the bond is because they actually have different validation requirements. The difference in votes cast on both is only a difference of a few hundred votes (377 at last count).

The difference in the validation requirements is a bit tricky to explain, but here goes: There are 2 hurdles placed in front of the levies. A 60% supermajority and also the 40% validation rate, which is that 40% of those voting in the previous November election must cast ballots again so taxes aren't imposed upon an unknowing public. The 40% rate for this election is 90,000 and change. 60% of that number is just over 54,000.

For the levy to pass, it needs a YES majority of 60% and simply to have a MINIMUM YES VOTE NUMBER of that 54,000.

The bond, on the other hand, needs a YES majority of 60% and a MINIMUM TOTAL VOTE of the 90,000 and change number. If EXACTLY that number cast ballots and it passed at EXACTLY 60%, the YES votes would be that 54,000 number.

Completely and unnecessarily over-complicated. Hope this sheds some light.
Beth Bakeman said…
Thank you, anonymous, for posting this explanation. It helps me understand what's happening, although I agree with you that it is "unnecessarily over-complicated."
Anonymous said…
I disagree that it is over complicated- actually I think it is fairly easy to understand for someone who is informed enough to be casting a ballot.
I also disagree that special elections should do away with a supermajority rule.

First Requirement-
the special election must have 40%- of the voters voting in the last election.

Since a special election seems to revolve around one issue, not everyone is aware of all ramifications- and 40% isn't really that many- obviously not even half.

Second requirement- to pass- 60% of that 40% voting, must vote for the levy/issue whatever, to pass.

So say you have 100 people voting in the November election- but only 40 people vote in your special election. Still a valid election.
Out of those 40 people-voting- you need 24 people or 60% of that 40% to vote FOR your issue.

If 24 people vote for it- then it passes.

Since it is difficult to get contributions, organized opposition, etc for special elections and since virtually all of those 40 people who are voting have a vested interest in getting the issue passed, it seems to me, that the "supermajority" rule, is reasonable and fair.

I am not going to compare it to other measures- because I do not use the technique that because Johnny fudged the rule, that means it is equally applicable to all.
But the rule makes sense to me
Brendan Works said…
I think the problem is the PI story. The reporter probably didn't have time to check back and look at the returns from previous elections. They show that this election was pretty typical, and the bond wasn't struggling. Turnout this time was about 28%, vs. 30% in 2001. It just takes time to count the ballots, especially the absentee ballots. The schedule from 2001 illustrates this: http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/2001feb/febsched.htm

Basically, the day of the election you get the in-person results, then two days after you get most of the absentee results. This was a mostly absentee election, hence, the turnout numbers didn't cross 90k until today.
Beth Bakeman said…
So you don't find the different requirements, as described by the first anonymous, for the bond and the levy unnecessarily confusing and complicated?
Brendan Works said…
I don't know how to say what kinds of complications are necessary or unnecessary. What is the right level of complication? We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars, so it's not surprising that there are some complex ballot procedures. Whether the ballot requirement details are too messy is separate from the substantive issue of whether they are fair. They certainly aren't democratic by any conventional meaning of the term.

My personal opinion is that the legislature should back off the supermajority plus 40% turnout threshold requirements. And at the same time we would make many grumpy voters happy if we put these measure on regular November ballots.

More important than any of this, though, is getting the legislature to fully fund our schools, as many have said. We shouldn't need to keep voting to keep our schools functioning and safe.
Anonymous said…
maybe this is a dumb question, but here goes anyway...

Why do we have special elections for the school funding issues? Why not just put them on the ballot in November? It's not like the district didn't know they were coming.
Brendan Works said…
My guess is it's because of this part of the Revised Code of Washington (Title 84 > Chapter 84.52 > Section 84.52.053)

A special election may be called and the time therefor fixed by the board of school directors, by giving notice thereof by publication in the manner provided by law for giving notices of general elections, at which special election the proposition authorizing such excess levy shall be submitted in such form as to enable the voters favoring the proposition to vote "yes" and those opposed thereto to vote "no".

The RCW doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for using general elections to approve these levies. My read at least. I am not a lawyer.
Anonymous said…
looks like both levies passed, both have over 90000 votes cast. per the metrokc.gov website. SSD website also has the measures passing. I looked yesterday and only 89k votes were cast for the construction bond and today its over the 90k needed to make the 40% rule.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Seattle School Board Meeting, Wednesday, September 18,2024