The year-and-a-half delay comes in response to an estimate from county election officials that found holding the vote this November would cost the city $2 million more than waiting until 2028, when the ballot measure could piggyback on the citywide mayoral election taking place that year.<\/p>\n
The ranked choice reform push has been energized by concern about San Jose\u2019s recent spending on special elections<\/a>. Supporters argue that granting city leaders the option to use ranked choice voting in such elections could save the city millions of dollars by eliminating costly runoffs.<\/p>\n However, the proposal has been met with fierce opposition. At various points during Tuesday\u2019s public comments, angry residents described the voting method as \u201cbad public policy,\u201d a \u201cscam\u201d and an \u201cabomination.\u201d Several argued it undermines elections by adding unnecessary complexity.<\/p>\n But District 4 Councilmember David Cohen, a chief backer behind Tuesday\u2019s proposal, said even if voters pass the ballot measure, it would mark only an incremental change, as the ranked choice reform covers just a subset of city elections and would not apply to regular elections.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would give us a good testing ground \u2026 to see how well it works in our city,\u201d Cohen said at the meeting. \u201cVoting yes today doesn\u2019t impose anything on our voters, it empowers the voters to decide if they want to add this option to the charter.\u201d<\/p>\n Under San Jose\u2019s charter, when a vacancy opens up on the city council or in the mayor\u2019s office outside of the typical election cycle, councilmembers may either fill the vacancy through appointment or by calling a special election.<\/p>\n The council has had to fill such vacancies several times in recent years. That includes two times<\/a> in 2023 to fill the vacancies<\/a> left behind by former District 8 Councilmember Sylvia Arenas, who won a seat on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and Matt Mahan, who departed District 10 after winning the 2022 mayor\u2019s race<\/a>. Most recently, San Jose held a special election for the District 3 council seat<\/a> to fill the vacancy opened up when former Councilmember Omar Torres resigned amid a child sex abuse scandal<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the case of a special election, if no candidate wins an outright majority of the vote, the city must\u00a0hold a runoff election. Critics said holding two off-cycle elections, often with extremely low voter turnout, is a poor use of city resources.<\/p>\n If San Jose allowed ranked choice voting, the city could instead conduct an instant runoff, eliminating the need for the second vote. In the case of last year\u2019s special election in District 3<\/a>, doing so would have saved the city $1.5 million, backers contend.<\/p>\n But while supporters maintain ranked choice voting helps boost voter turnout, detractors have questioned this claim. They warn that by foisting an unfamiliar system on voters, the plan could backfire, causing some to stay home or lose trust in the process.<\/p>\n \u201cYes, elections are expensive \u2014 especially in California,\u201d former Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone<\/a>, a consistent critic of ranked choice voting, said during public comment. \u201cBut sometimes the cost of elections are some of the best and most cost-effective expenditures a government can make.\u201d<\/p>\n Under a ranked choice system, if a voter\u2019s first choice candidate receives the lowest vote count, their vote shifts to their second choice candidate. The process continues until a single candidate garners a majority of the votes.<\/p>\n Casey warned the work it would take to educate voters about the new voting method could require significant city expenditures.<\/p>\n \u201cI just don\u2019t understand the need to add an extra layer of complexity to the voting process,\u201d Casey said at the meeting. \u201cI think we should be making it as simple as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n The proposed change, which requires voter approval because it\u2019s a charter amendment, would only create the option for ranked choice voting \u2014 leaving it up to the council to choose what voting method to select to fill any particular vacancy.<\/p>\n Councilmembers also asked staff to review how ranked choice voting systems have played out in other cities. Councilmembers must still review the ballot measure at least one more time before it gets placed on the March 2028 ballot, leaving open the possibility it could be revised or even scrapped entirely.<\/p>\n San Jose has considered ranked choice voting before. In 2022, a proposal to enact ranked choice voting for all city elections emerged as one of the primary recommendations<\/a> from a year-long charter review process conducted by a citizen-led commission. However, councilmembers rejected the measure<\/a> over similar concerns.<\/p>\n Four years later, as ranked choice voting systems catch on in more places \u2014 including Hawaii, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington \u2014 some of the reform\u2019s local supporters are growing impatient.<\/p>\n \u201cRanked choice voting is good government, and it is being implemented by governments throughout the country successfully,\u201d San Jose resident and prominent housing advocate Alex Shoor said at the meeting. \u201cHow many more governments need to implement ranked choice voting before we make it our policy here in San Jose?\u201d<\/p>\n![\"San](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Casey-council-1024x768.jpg\")
District 10 Councilmember George Casey (right) raised a series of pointed questions about ranked choice voting during the meeting. Photo by Keith Menconi.<\/p>\n![\"In-line](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/interactive-321838904008.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n