Tonight, Mayor Ron Dellums is expected to take an action he has only done once during his tenure—cast a tiebreaking vote.

The occasion that will draw such an unusual move from the mayor, who does not sit in City Council under Oakland’s charter, is a 4-4 deadlocked proposal to divert $100,000 toward voter education for the city’s new ranked-choice voting system while preserving $100,000 for public campaign financing.

Adopted in November 2006 when Measure O passed by 69 percent, ranked-choice voting, also known as instant run-off voting, allows voters to rank up to three candidates in order of preference instead of choosing one, as is the case with the traditional voting format.

With ranked-choice voting, a candidate who receives a majority, or 50 percent plus one of the first-choice votes cast for that office, will be elected. If no candidate gains the majority, however, an elimination process begins and the candidate who received the fewest first-choice votes is cut. Votes cast for that candidate are transferred to the voter’s next-ranked choice and the process continues until one candidate wins a majority.

The rationale behind the new system—still far from the norm across the country and implemented within the state only in San Francisco since 2004—is that eliminating separate run-off elections would make for a more efficient and cost-effective process, according to Guy Ashley, spokesman for the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

“It’s been discussed in Alameda County, particularly in Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro, and those cities decided to venture forth after San Francisco used it and found it worked particularly well,” Ashley said.

Traditionally, voter participation rates in June primaries, especially among people of color and youth, have been as low as 15 percent, according to the Mitchell Kapor Foundation.

Come Nov. 2, ranked-choice voting will be used in Oakland to elect the mayor, City Council members, city attorney and city auditor.

As with all new systems, implementing ranked-choice voting will take time and money, the issue on the table tonight. 

The original proposal presented by District 5 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente (Glenview-Fruitvale) and Councilmember At Large Rebecca Kaplan on March 16 entailed using $255,000 previously earmarked for public campaign financing to teach residents how to use ranked-choice voting.

“I believe it is a more difficult voting system, especially for non-English speaking and minority populations, and we are responsible to provide voter education so people know the system has changed and how voting will take place,” De La Fuente said.

But Vice Mayor Jean Quan (Montclair-Laurel) made a substitute motion to amend the ordinance to allocate $100,000, about half the amount initially proposed, to voter education.

It was a compromise seconded by Council President Jane Brunner (North Oakland), who said she values public campaign financing because it gives grassroots candidates a chance against incumbents with more resources. In years past, candidates running for district council seats have been eligible to receive matching funds of up to 30 percent of the spending ceiling for the positions they seek.

“It helps people who don’t have a lot of money or a lot of name recognition,” Brunner said.

Furthermore, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters is already tasked with voter education through mailers, brochures and videos.

Since Oakland has more registered voters than Berkeley and San Leandro, it must pay the registrar a 63.3 percent share of the total cost—approximately $730,000—to implement the new system, according to City Clerk LaTonda Simmons. This includes $146,000 in education and outreach.

In addition to the county, volunteer groups like the League of Women Voters in Oakland are planning voter education campaigns, another reason league members “don’t believe it is absolutely necessary for the city to divert funds,” said its Co-President Katherine Gavzy.

“If the city does insist on appropriating public campaign financing funds to use for rank-choice voting education and outreach, they must make sure that all efforts are coordinated with the Registrar of Voters and that they are monitored and accountable,” Gavzy said.

Still, De La Fuente and Kaplan differentiated between the county’s work and their desired supplement, a city-run outreach effort involving door-to-door, direct voter contact.

Weighing the various factors at play, passing the substitute motion may be the city’s best option, said Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, executive director of Oakland Rising, which consists of four organizations that target low-income, multi-ethnic voters mainly in East and West Oakland.

“We need to come up with a greater resolution to our budgeting problems here in Oakland and I think it is right to strike a balance, a compromise so that there is money for both,” she said.

The mayor must appear at the Council meeting to break the deadlock in which Council members Patricia Kernighan and Nancy Nadel voted with Quan and Brunner and Council members Larry Reid and Desley Brooks sided with De La Fuente and Kaplan.

If Dellums does not cast a vote in favor, the substitute motion will fail and the Council will take a vote on the original motion.

You Can Speak Tonight at the Council Meeting: Sign Up for Item 10.2 on the Agenda tonightby filling out a speaker's card here.

Call to Candidates: Share your Platforms and Views on Oakland Local | Oakland Local http://bit.ly/ckJ6tN

Who is running for what? A reference list for Oakland and Alameda County | Oakland Local http://bit.ly/avuFNy

Note: Publication does not consider endorsement of any candidates or views.

See election coverage at http://oaklandlocal.com/tags/election