Meeting Public Comments

David Gion [Better Ballot Iowa]

Well, (1) today, Feb 12, 2024, there was a Senate Subcommittee Hearing for SSB3161, the exact companion bill to this HSB697. (2) While we were in that Senate Subcommittee Hearing, this bill dropped in the Iowa House, with the House subcommittee hearing a little more than 24 hours later, for Feb 13, 3:30 PM CST. (3) I asked our Lobbying group if comments for companion bills automatically tranfser from one bill to another and they said no. (4) SSB3161 had 143 commments posted about the bill. (5) 140 comments were regarding Division III, banning of RCV in Iowa elections with 6 comments for Banning RCV (4%) and 134 comments against banning it, wanting RCV (96%). So, 96% of the people commenting want to give RCV a try in Iowa and 4% want to ban it, AND yet the committee went with the 4%. (6) So, I have attached all of the 140 comments pertaining to RCV on SSB3161 so those in the House Committee may view these as well. I would hope the House Subcommittee might listen to the 96% of Iowans who commented. Respectfully, David J Gion.

Josh Daniels [Fmr. Utah County Clerk, Successful Implementation of RCV (Sharing per request of Better Ballot Iowa)]

Dear Chair & members of the committee,(1) I write in concern to Division III of HSB697, which would ban Ranked Chocie Voting thusdepriving localities from using Ranked Choice Voting to avoid expensive runoff elections. Iwould like to share my experience as an election administrator in implementing RCV in Utah,and why the number of Utah cities choosing to use RCV increased from two in 2019 to 12 in2023. (2) That experience is why I also urge you to no prematurely ban RCV. A few other states areconsidering legislation to prohibit all forms of RCV with no differentiation in how RCV can beused. It would be a mistake for Iowa to follow their example. RCV is a beneficial option for avariety of reasons, and legislatures should avoid proactive prohibitions that reduce futureoptions. (3) Please see attachment for more details. Respectfully, Josh Daniels

Thomas McInerney []

I support HSB 697.Iowa already has one of the highest voter participation rates in the United States. Such a high rate signifies evidence that the existing "one person, one vote" system works and is straightforward to Iowans. Allowing an alternate system of voting like Ranked Choice Voting can only increase the likelihood of confusion during elections. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) requires voters to make decisions about all the candidates on the ballot, forcing them to cast their vote for candidates that they disapprove of or lack sufficient information about. There is no clear consensus the Ranked Choice Voting has any benefit for Iowans except for those politicians who cannot get elected using the existing rules. Keep the existing system that has been successful for Iowans for generations. Let Iowa keep being Iowa!

Michael Bayer []

DIVISION IV Absent Voters: The 2005 CarterBaker Commission on Federal Election Reform, stated that Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. This is still true today. I fully support implementing voter ID for mailin ballots. Requiring a voter's voter verification number on the absentee ballot affidavit envelope is one way to accomplish voter ID for absentee voters. Since an Iowa judge ruled that signature verification could not be used, there has been little to no verification that the absentee voter is the person who voted their ballot. I fully support the elimination ballot drop boxes. The drop boxes are unattended. Ballot harvesters can drop off many ballots in violation of Iowa law. Even though Iowa law requires video surveilance, there is no evidence that County Elections Officials or law enforcement are reviewing the videos on a routine basis. There are questions whether citizens are able to access the videos. I oppose increasing the length of absentee voting from 20 to 22 days. I feel the length of time should be decreased not increased. I do support changing the deadline for receiving absentee ballots in the county commissioner's office to the close of business the day before the election. This will allow the ASVP board to verify and open the ballot on election day rather than waiting until election evening or the next day.

Michael Bayer []

If you are not familiar with the complexity of Ranked Choice Voting watch the video "How Does Ranked Choice Voting Work?" on YouTube at https://youtu.be/3K3OWokYapU.

Robin Doty []

I respectfully ask you to remove Division III of HSB 697.

Allison Castle [Please Select]

Please remove Division 3 from this Bill banning Rank Choice Voting. As a Iowa votingcitizen I want more choice and better choices for my elected officials. I want morecivil campaigning. I want my vote to matter.I want something better than what wehave today. I have learned about Rank Choice Voting and believe it could addressmany of the frustrations I have with the current system.Please remove Division 3from this bill so that conversation around the positive opportunities with RankChoice Voting can happen.

Paul Lux []

I support Ranked Choice Voting. Please remove Division III. RCV can make out politics less polarized and make voters feel better represented.

Justin Whitty []

Thank you for considering changes to our elections this legislative season. Please consider removing Division III of SSB3161 that bans Ranked Choice Voting. All sides can agree elections need to be secure, fair, and available to all registered and interested Iowans regardless of their means. As a concerned Iowa parent frustrated by partisan rancor, I take my civic responsibilities seriously; I have spent time understanding the limitations of our existing Plurality Voting system, and how Ranked Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting), Single Transferable Vote, Fusion Voting, Proportional Representation, Final Five Voting, "deep polling" and Citizen Assemblies can give voters more voice in policy decisions. Iowans are eager to learn more on these topics, and RCV enjoys wide support from the political science community. RCV gives voters more choice, encourages positive and issue focused campaigns, eliminates costly and low turnout runoff elections, and has potential to develop our democracy into something that can address issues that are currently intractable. It is time to thoughtfully adapt our system to face new challenges brought on by electronic media, not stifle the marketplace of ideas with confusing fear campaigns designed to protect the status quo.

Amy Brown []

I'm writing to ask you to strike Division III from SSB3161. Exit polls consistently show that where RCV is used (over 50 jurisdictions), voters both like and UNDERSTAND it (it is NOT confusing). In addition, results can be tabulated as quickly as our current systems (where results have been slower, it has been due to a choice by election administrators to allow time for absentee ballots to come in. This has nothing to do with RCV). RCV makes more ballots count in the final outcome. RCV elects winners with broad support and has proven to lower the awful, negative campaigning. Thank you.

Randy Hefel []

Division III Ranked Choice Voting Please support SB3161 against Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). If you are going to allow RCV what will be next, maybe we will just have our candidates roll dices to see who is the high roller or maybe have our candidates draw for high card from a deck of cards to be the winner. To not support SB3161 to make RCV illegal, would be allowing our election process to turn into a bigger circus than it already is.

Sharon Santema [Iowa Canvassing volunteers]

I've been a volunteer with election integrity for 2 years. Please do not pass HSB 697 without ammending with these recommended changes:DIVISION III: Keep it simple...One vote per person, the one with the most votes wins. With Ranked Choice Voting, there is lower voter participation because it is confusing. Moderates and minor parties get squeezed out and you cannot vote against someone. And it is practically inauditable. In Alaska's 2022 special election, the resultscame 3 weeks after election day. NOTE: Ranked Choice Voting and Instant Runoff Voting aretwo terms for the same process. Approval Voting is a variation that allows voters to choose any number of candidates whom they like, and the one candidate who was chosen the most, wins the election. RECOMMENDATION: (2a) berewritten to read "An election in this state shall not be conducted using ranked choicevoting (or instant runoff voting), approval voting OR ANY SIMILAR COMPLICATEDVOTING SCHEME." Hand counting serialized paper ballots, election day a holiday, no machines, sameday results. This is the method that saves time, saves money, requires fewer statutes which rarely need updating and ensures that elections are as honest and fair as possible.DIVISION IV: I agree with eliminating Drop Boxes. It is a fairly well known fact that the mailinabsentee ballots are the basis of a lot of the election fraud that has been happening around the country. PLEASE DO NOT EXPAND the number of days that nefarious actors have to predict voter outcomes and inject absentee ballots to alter the election results. RECOMMENDATION: Fourteen days for a voter toreceive and return an Absentee ballot (Section 14 (1a). Also shorten to fourteen daysfor the commissioner to provide facilities for absentee voting in person at thecommissioners office (Section 16 (1)). Not more than fourteen days before theelection, satellite voting stations shall be established (Section 18 (a)).DIVISION VIis very concerning because there are no parameters on the 3rd party vendor to bechosen for verification of voters. Using a Credit Bureau would be acceptable. Also, the timeline is objectionable because Iowa would not have clean voter rolls for the Presidential election in November. Iowa volunteers have found 39,368 names on the voter rolls which have moved and are registered to vote in another state, and over 1,000 have been deceased for 4 months up to 30 years are still on the voter rolls. Thousands more who likely have moved to another jurisdiction according to the National Change of Address database. Every illegitimate name is vulnerable to becoming a fraudulent ballot. The best way to have a clean slate is to have all voters reregister, becauseyou cannot sweep a dirt floor. Col. Shawn Smith's 3minute Clean Slate vs. Cleaningup Voter Rolls is here:https://causeofamerica.org/Post/elections101#CleanSlatevCleanUp. If all voters reregistered as soon as possible, Iowa could havea clean slate by this November's election. Then maintain voter list on computerized, offline at the county level. Readonly file gets sent to state for statewide voter database.

Anne Fairchild []

Please keep section III to prevent RCV and other similar voting schemes. These methods disenfranchise voters with more ballots being thrown out far more than the straight one ballot one vote method we use today. Thank you!

Riley Mattice [Riley Mattice]

The concerns raised about Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) are understandable, but it's essential to consider the benefits it brings to the electoral process. RCV promotes inclusivity, representation, and voter engagement, while also saving costs by eliminating the need for runoff elections. Contrary to fears about complexity and confusion, evidence shows that voters adapt quickly to RCV once they understand it.Moreover, RCV does not increase the risk of fraud; rather, it enhances transparency and accountability by ensuring that the candidate with the broadest support ultimately wins. Therefore, I urge policymakers to reconsider the inclusion of Division III in the proposed legislation and to support the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting for a more inclusive and efficient electoral system.