Sightline Institute Research

Contrary to some misconceptions, most voters seem to understand that housing is good.

The claim comes again and again like clockwork: That allowing homes to exist can be hazardous to a politician's career.

Even at the annual picnic of her own neighborhood association, surrounded by pasta salad and barbeque, Jessica Bateman couldn't escape the threat.

It was summer 2019. In her first term as a city councilor in Olympia, Washington, Bateman had led a charge to legalize duplexes, fourplexes, and other small apartment buildings in much more of the city. A man who lived down the street from her confronted her about it at the picnic.

"I said, 'I think people are gonna like it,'"

Bateman recalled.

"And he said, 'Or we're just gonna vote you out of office!'"

Bateman did indeed draw a challenger for her council seat, who made the seemingly controversial new zoning code her central issue. But then Bateman defeated her by 33 points, carrying every precinct in the city.

It'd be hard to call Bateman's election victory a fluke - or Bateman's subsequent election to the state House of Representatives and then the state Senate, where she was immediately selected to chair the housing committee. Last week's results offer the latest evidence that in election after election politicians who support housing options like duplexes, townhomes, and apartments overwhelmingly tend to win their races.

In Washington, universal re-election for pro-housing legislators

Let's start with Washington, where Bateman quickly established herself as one of the state's leading housing advocates after her constituents sent her to the state Capitol. In 2023, she carried a law through the legislature that re-legalized so-called "missing middle" housing, like triplexes and townhomes, in cities across the state.

In a 2022 news report, the state's largest public radio station had called an earlier version of the concept "potentially career-ending." Now, 19 months after the contested but successful legislative votes over Bateman's House Bill 1110, we can test that notion:

Every single Washington legislator of either party who voted for Bateman's zoning bill and ran for re-election in 2024 ended up winning both their August primary and November general elections. Six other legislators, including Bateman, ran for new offices and won.

Meanwhile, only three legislators who had supported House Bill 1110 lost, all three after deciding to enter already-crowded races for higher office: Republican Jacquelin Maycumber, who ran for Congress and lost to Spokane County Treasurer Michael Baumgartner; Democrat Kevin Van De Wege, who ran for public lands commissioner and lost to King County Council member Dave Upthegrove; and Democrat Mark Mullet, who ran for governor and lost to Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

In Oregon, zoning reformers in both parties have been defeated only by other zoning reformers

Because Washington's bill was only passed last year, 18 of its supporters in the state senate haven't come up for reelection yet. So for a look at the longer-term political implications of a housing bill, let's check in on Oregon's very similar fourplex legalization from 2019. Every legislator who voted for that bill, House Bill 2001, has now been up for re-election at least once; House members have been up twice.

Five years later, fourplex supporters in Oregon continue to have a flawless electoral performance:

Out of 48 Oregon legislators who supported HB 2001 and subsequently ran again, only three have lost:

Republican Sen. Denyc Boles, who'd been appointed to fill a Democratic-leaning seat in Salem and lost to Congregational minister Deb Patterson, a Democrat who went on to co-sponsor a follow-up to the fourplex bill.

Republican Rep. Cheri Helt, who had won a Democratic-leaning seat in Bend after her opponent faced a sexual abuse scandal. Helt was then ousted after one term in favor of Jason Kropf, a Democrat who also went on to co-sponsor the follow-up fourplex bill.

Democratic Sen. Bet...

And how leaders can still help families and businesses electrify for safer, cleaner buildings in line with the state's climate values.

Washingtonians narrowly approved Initiative 2066, the ballot measure that will hinder the state's efforts to reduce climate pollution from buildings. It is the only one of the four state ballot measures backed by conservative group Let's Go Washington that voters passed. I-2066 squeaked by with a 3-point margin, according to the latest vote tally, with 90 percent of ballots counted. That's compared to the whopping 24-point margin by which voters rejected I-2117, which would have repealed the state's cap-and-invest law, the Climate Commitment Act. (Environmental groups are promising legal challenges to the constitutionality of I-2066.)

The choice to pass I-2066 but reject I-2117 is contradictory, as I wrote before the election. In essence, it was a vote to maintain a cap on emissions, while rejecting tools that could actually reduce emissions.

What explains this inconsistency? And where does the effort to stop burning gas in Washington's buildings go from here?

One lesson may be that future gas transition policies need to clearly paint a picture of what people gain by going all-electric - cleaner air, more comfortable homes, thicker wallets - not just what they'd be missing - in this case, the indoor air pollution that comes from gas-powered appliances and the greenhouse gas emissions that come from fracking for gas in the first place, among other drawbacks.

Moving forward, legislators and Governor-elect Bob Ferguson would be wise not to interpret I-2066's narrow passage as a signal from voters to slow climate progress. Instead, they can take inspiration from Washingtonians' overwhelming rejection of I-2117 and hold gas utilities accountable to fulfilling the intent of the immensely popular Climate Commitment Act.

Money, messaging, and movement backing: Why voters rejected one anti-climate initiative and passed the other

Of the four Let's Go Washington measures on Washingtonians' ballots, Initiative 2066 was the most likely to pass, according to pre-election polling. Initiative 2066's confusing language certainly played a part. Five percent of voters left the question about I-2066 blank, the most of any of the four initiatives, according to the No on 2066 campaign.

But the effort to oppose I-2066 faced several other headwinds, which could help explain why voters approved the measure even though they signaled strong support for state climate solutions by resoundingly rejecting I-2117.

Scant funding and a misinformed Seattle Times endorsement made for an uphill battle against I-2066

The campaign against I-2066 ran on a shoestring budget, compared to the campaign against I-2117 to protect Washington's Climate Commitment Act. No on 2066 raised less than 2 percent of the money that No on 2117 pulled in: $301,645 compared to more than $16 million. (Let's Go Washington had more than $9 million at its disposal to support all four of its ballot measures.) The top two contributors to No on 2117 - protecting the well-known Climate Commitment Act - included high-profile billionaires Steve and Connie Ballmer and Bill Gates, whereas the top two contributors to No on 2066 were local nonprofit environmental organizations Washington Conservation Action and Climate Solutions.

A misleading, error-ridden "yes" endorsement from the Seattle Times no doubt also helped I-2066 eke out a win. The two measures that the Seattle Times recommended voters reject, I-2117 and I-2109, both failed by more than 20-point margins. By contrast, the other initiative (besides I-2066) that the Times recommended a "yes" vote for, I-2124, failed by a narrower 10-point margin.

Voters could already see tangible wins from the Climate Commitment Act, helping the opposition to I-2117

One advantage that the No on 2117 campaign had over the No on 2066 campaign was the vested interest the Climate Commitment Act has already created across the s...

After Washingtonians overwhelmingly voted to keep the Climate Commitment Act, their leaders have powerful opportunities ahead.

Voters in Washington state delivered a resounding endorsement of climate action on Tuesday. They overwhelmingly rejected Initiative 2117, which would have repealed the state's cap-and-invest law, the Climate Commitment Act. In fact, as of the latest ballot count, with 80 percent of votes counted, Washingtonians opted to keep the Climate Commitment Act by a bigger margin than the one by which the dependably blue state voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. A signal of widespread support to prioritize climate action - and not go backward - even sounded from places in Washington that Donald Trump won handily, like Spokane County.

As of this writing, the other anti-climate ballot initiative, Initiative 2066, which would roll back the state's efforts to power buildings with clean electricity instead of burning gas, is still too close to call. Confusion over the double negative language of that ballot measure, deceptive booster messaging about what it would do, a less well-funded "no" campaign than the one focused on defeating I-2117, and a (misleading, error-ridden) "yes" endorsement from the Seattle Times likely all contributed to I-2066 being a far closer race than that for I-2117. Still, that votes on I-2066 are so close - 51 percent in favor and 49 percent against - is indicative of support for climate action among a broad swath of Washingtonians. (If I-2066 passes, it is also likely to face legal challenges in the coming months.)

Now that the election is over, what's next for climate policy in the Evergreen state? In short, it's time to get back to work, passing more policies that will put Washington state on track to meet its legally required greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

And to be clear, when we're talking about emissions and climate policy, we're talking about things most people want in their everyday lives: clean air to breathe and water to drink; safe and toxics-free homes, schools, and businesses; vibrant, connective neighborhoods free from highway noise and pollution; and a shared path of accountability and commitment to a more stable climate future.

With federal climate action likely at a standstill (at best) over the next four years, Washington can keep moving forward. Below, Sightline outlines four ways that Governor-elect Bob Ferguson and Washington lawmakers can model climate action for the rest of the United States, including:

Round out the Climate Commitment Act to fulfill what the legislature and voters intend for it to do: cut pollution, including from gas utilities and big polluting facilities, and uphold its environmental justice commitments.

Advance climate action at the Utilities and Transportation Commission, which regulates investor-owned gas utilities, including by appointing a climate champion as commissioner.

Build the grid Washington needs to support its clean energy future.

Double down on neighborhood-scale thermal energy networks, the highly efficient carbon-free networks of water pipes and ground-source heat pumps that are popular with environmental, labor, and consumer advocates.

After all, Tuesday's results show that climate is a winning issue in Washington.

1. Round out the Climate Commitment Act to hold polluters accountable and advance environmental justice

The Climate Commitment Act is one of Washington's most powerful climate policies. Washingtonians voted to uphold that law by a nearly 24-point margin, as of the latest ballot count. Still, the Climate Commitment Act as written does not guarantee that Washington meets its climate or environmental goals. Now that voters have unequivocally made clear that they want to retain the state's cap-and-invest program, lawmakers can get to work filling in its gaps. They can do that in at least three ways:

A. Hold gas utilities accountable to reducing emissions, rather allowing them to simply pay to keep polluting

Big...

Primaries featuring more choice for voters and candidates almost became the law in Big Sky Country.

Nearly half of Montana voters elected to open Montana's primary elections to all candidates and all voters. They almost made Montana the second state, after Alaska, to adopt this reform that gives voters more freedom to choose. Surprisingly, many of the same voters split their ballots on a companion election reform proposals for majority winners. Thus, Montanans pushed one proposal tantalizingly close to victory while rejecting the other by a wide margin.

The first proposal, Constitutional Initiative 126, would have implemented unified primary elections - that is, open to all voters and candidates, regardless of party - with the top four vote-getters advancing to the general election. Almost 49 percent of Montanans voted in favor of this primary system, a dramatically larger share than in neighboring Idaho and more than in Colorado or Nevada, other states that considered proposals for unified primaries.

The second, Constitutional Initiative 127, would have required Montana elections to honor a core tenet of democracy - the principle of majority rule: winners of state general elections would have to secure the support of a majority of voters for statewide and congressional offices. The legislature would determine the method of securing a majority vote. Some 40 percent of voters supported the majority-winner measure.

Open primaries and majority-winner elections deliver a bevy of benefits

The initiatives' election methods together, proposed and supported by a single campaign, probably would have led to a system akin to Alaska's, with open, all-candidate and -voter primaries and instant runoff elections. Alaska's system has effected the following changes:

Political parties used to make the rules for primary elections. Now, laws approved by voters govern the primaries.

Candidates popular with general election voters no longer face the prospect of "getting primaried" - that is, losing in the primary to candidates who appeal to the smaller, often less representative pool of primary voters.

Lawmakers have more freedom to work with colleagues of different political backgrounds on practical policy solutions without fear of electoral backlash.

Independent candidates can now run for office under the same rules as candidates who belong to a political party rather than having to fulfill extra requirements to get on the ballot.

Voters in the general election no longer must worry about "wasting" their vote on a "spoiler candidate." That is, they don't have to vote for a candidate they're not excited about just to keep their least-favorite candidate from winning.

Ranked choice general elections ensure winners have the support of a majority of voters, not just more voters than any other candidate.

In Montana, proponents hoped the measures would rise or fall together, but 9 percent of ballots (almost 54,000 voters) supported open primaries while opposing the majority-winner rule.

Status quo system limits voter choice and sometimes delivers winners without majority support

Under the status quo, Montanans must pick one party's primary ballot and advance one candidate for each race, a system that narrows general election voters' choices and doesn't allow for cross-partisan voting. And in general elections, candidates can win with a plurality, rather than a majority, of voter support. (A plurality means more than other candidates, but less than 50 percent of the vote.)

How has this problem played out in Montana? From 2012 to 2022, in one gubernatorial election, one US Senate election, and two elections for US House, a majority of Montanans voted for losing candidates, meaning someone in each instance won election to a powerful office with less than majority support. Despite these recent high-profile plurality-winner elections, voters rejected CI-127, meaning that future elections are still at risk of unrepresentative results.

Had Montana adopted op...

In the reddest patch of Cascadia, a sizable minority of voters wished for a system to thwart spoilers, promote cooperation, and allow participation beyond partisan labels.

In Idaho, about 30 percent of voters saw room for improvement in the state's pick-one, closed primary voting system. But a majority chose to stick with the status quo, rejecting Proposition 1, the open-primary, instant-runoff measure on the November ballot. The proposed statute had an uphill climb despite support from many prominent Republicans; others, including Speaker of the House Mike Moyle and Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon, came out against the measure.

The opposition campaign's provocative messaging, including claims that Proposition 1 was a scheme to "californicate" Idaho's elections, likely also contributed to the measure's loss. Though pro-reformers outraised Proposition 1's detractors by over 8:1 according to the last round of reporting, it seems that the "Yes" campaign did not convince voters that a change was necessary.

The fundamental dynamic in all electoral reform ballot measure campaigns is that citizens, even if they dislike the hyperpartisan status quo, are deeply suspicious about proposals to change the way they vote or the way their votes are counted. The YES campaign has to vault over a high bar. In a supermajority Republican state like Idaho, division among Republican leaders may have been enough to doom the measure, just as in the supermajority Democratic state of Oregon, the doubts generated by division may have tanked that state's reform.

And while Alaska uses a similar system, the open, all-candidate primary and instant runoff model remained an utter novelty to almost all Idaho voters. Perhaps in a state that consistently and reliably elects Republicans, Idahoans did not feel pain points in the current system: the shoe wasn't pinching, so they didn't want to change it. Some commentators speculated this was the case when deep-blue Massachusetts rejected a ranked choice voting amendment in 2020.

Still, 30 percent of Idahoans recognized and voted to address problems below the surface of Idaho's electoral system. That's not a bad place to start. Under the status quo, primaries exclude tax-paying citizens, candidates have incentives to campaign on personal attacks and culture war issues rather than policy, and the state is tiptoeing around a plurality winner pitfall that could elect a governor or senator with as little as 34 percent of the vote. Independent voters, despite making up a quarter of the registered population, will still largely be politically homeless.

Other models might appeal to voters whose appetite for reform is more incremental. California and Washington State have a "top-two" unified primary system that has been shown to turn down the political temperature and increase turnout. Even simply opening Idaho's primaries to all voters and parties could boost participation and representation in the Gem State. Reformers will have to regroup and assess whether any of the 70 percent of voters who turned down Proposition 1 might be interested in alternative ways to upgrade Idaho's elections.

The state's voters rejected Measure 117 to implement ranked choice voting in the state, though notably not in places where voters use ranked choice voting locally.

Current vote totals show that a large majority of Oregon voters chose not to approve Measure 117, which would have established ranked choice voting for statewide and federal offices (similar to the model currently in place in Maine). The result means that future Oregon elections will continue to suffer from spoiler candidates and the potential for wasted votes. While administrators have not yet counted all votes, early results show a decisive margin of defeat: 60 percent of ballots counted opposed the measure, and remaining ballots are unlikely to change the outcome.

Portland voters, meanwhile, used ranked choice voting for the first time, and preliminary results from the state's largest city indicate that Multnomah County Elections implemented it without any major hitches, following similar smooth implementation in 2020 in Benton County. Notably, too, results so far show that both Multnomah and Benton counties voted in favor of Measure 117, suggesting that the reform becomes more appealing with use. As more voters gain familiarity with ranked ballots in Oregon and elsewhere, support for a similar change in the future may grow.

Among a dozen election-reform ballot measures in the United States this month, Oregon's Measure 117 was unique in being on the ballot thanks to the legislature rather than a citizens' petition drive. Majority Democrats in Salem referred the question to voters, partly motivated by the desire to prevent recurrences of their party's near-loss of the 2022 governor's race because of an independent spoiler candidate. The partisan back-story of Measure 117 may be one reason for its demise: Democratic-leaning areas supported it, but more conservative counties (and commentators) opposed it.

Although the coalition in favor of the measure attracted broad support from a variety of organizations, county clerks (who administer elections in Oregon) expressed concern over the costs of the implementation. In addition, some voters may have been swayed by a "no" endorsement from one of the state's leading news outlets, the Oregonian. Interestingly, one of the arguments megaphoned by the paper was that the measure did not go far enough, because it did not change the structure of the primary, unlike Alaska's model.1 While in other states, mostly with more conservative electorates, majorities of voters are on track to reject measures with open, all-party primaries, future democracy reformers in Oregon may still look to make that bigger upgrade.

More choices mean more legwork but should lead to a more effective and representative government.

By now, many Portlanders have received and opened their ballots to vote in this November's election. For the first time, they see a grid ballot where they can choose up to six candidates in order, for both mayor and their city council district.

Many Portlanders are still learning how this new voting method works. The first time voting this way will take some adjustment, and residents might feel like they're participating in a grand experiment. Maybe some Portlanders are overwhelmed by the abundance of choices (although one might add that it's a bounty of highly qualified choices and that US democracy has been an experiment from the get-go). At the same time, voters might feel glad to know that they'll have a backup choice if their first-choice candidate can't win - particularly in the mayoral race, which has more than two top contenders who might have split votes under the former, non-ranked method.

Amid the sometimes frustrating nuts and bolts of learning a new ballot and strategizing about candidate rankings, it's worth remembering: there's a reason for all of this. Portland is switching into a higher gear, and just like on a bicycle, it takes some effort to make the shift.

Former troubles

Portland's outgoing form of government was not working. From trash to parking to trees, good ideas got mired in bureau transitions, turf wars, and other baggage of the city's outdated commission form of government. City services that residents prioritize are not the ones they rate as having the best quality. Most Portlanders - 58 percent - do not think that Portland has an effective government, according to a 2024 survey.

In addition, the city's elected officials have not reflected its population for the preponderance of the city's history. Women and people of color are severely underrepresented historically. Most (80 percent) of Portland's commissioners have lived in inner northeast Portland and west of the Willamette (in what are now Districts 2 and 4), neighborhoods that are whiter and wealthier, and that have more homeowners than the rest of the city. Just 23 percent of people polled in 2024 said there was someone on Portland City Council who represents them or their interests.

Process matters in determining these outcomes: more than two-thirds of commissioner races, for example, were won with votes from less than 35 percent of registered voters, many times because the candidates prevailed in a low-turnout primary election.

All that history is part of why this election is such an important step in changing gears to move toward a solution - or multiple solutions - to remedy Portland's ailments.

Future hope

The unfamiliar ballots that Portlanders are currently encountering are a major component of the changes voters adopted (by a large margin) in 2022, and they will define both the legislative and executive branches of the new model of government.

The Charter Commission that proposed the changes carefully chose this method of running elections - multi-member districts with proportional ranked choice voting - after exploring a variety of other electoral options. Single-member districts wouldn't guarantee any type of representation beyond geography, which doesn't necessarily align with every issue important to city residents. And few other electoral methods can offer proportional representation for nonpartisan races (without giving a role to political parties). Plus, other US cities, not to mention other national governments, have tried out multi-winner ranked choice voting and achieved legislative bodies that better reflect their populations.

The longer ballots, though, do give voters more to parse. Portland is likely now experiencing the least satisfying phase of its transition, like the whirring and clicking that comes with shifting a bicycle into a higher gear before it settles into place. With the multitude of candidates running for al...

Closed primaries exclude voters, encourage divisive behavior, and can subvert the will of Idahoans.

Janice McGeachin's four years as Idaho's lieutenant governor were fraught with controversy. In what Governor Brad Little called an "abuse of power," McGeachin on two occasions issued wide-ranging executive orders while the governor was temporarily out of state. She also spoke at a conference hosted by a white nationalist who called for "total Aryan victory." And when McGeachin violated the Idaho Public Records Act, a judge quipped that she "would stop at nothing, no matter how misguided, to shield public records from the public."

But though Republican McGeachin won the office in 2018 in a state that had not elected a Democrat to statewide office in 16 years, she was not even the first choice of most Republican voters. Of about 177,000 votes cast in the May 2018 Republican primary, just 51,000 voters - less than a third - picked McGeachin. Four other candidates split the remainder, putting McGeachin on top with only a plurality (more votes than anyone else but less than 50 percent). In other words, a majority of primary voters chose someone other than Janice McGeachin.

The very possibility of plurality winner elections conflicts with the concept of majority rule, a core tenet of democracy. Winners lacking majority support (like McGeachin) are not the norm in Idaho but they are not uncommon. A Sightline study of Idaho elections from 2012 to 2022 found that 11 percent of Republican primaries for statewide executive offices such as governor and attorney general produced a primary winner who earned only a plurality of votes, not a majority.

Idaho's primaries amplify the risk of a plurality winner in a race with three or more candidates. Closed partisan primaries attract low turnout, skewing toward the preferences of party diehards. Candidates can campaign on inflammatory ideas or personal attacks to stand out in a crowded field, emphasizing intraparty divisions and splitting the electorate. And even though independent and minority party voters pay for primary elections with their taxes, they are excluded from the process.

A recent gubernatorial race highlights the potential for the plurality winner problem to spill over into general election contests even in deep red Idaho. In 2022 independent candidate Ammon Bundy received the highest vote share of any candidate outside the two major parties in nearly a century. Under the current pick-one voting system, a strong independent candidate like Bundy could split the statewide vote, and someone who fails to represent most voters' values could be elected into office.

Other states, including Alaska, Georgia, Maine, and Mississippi, have implemented systems that guarantee majority-winner elections. A measure on November's ballot would do the same in Idaho.

Plurality winners by the numbers

A new Sightline study examined more than 1,700 Idaho primary and general elections from 2012 to 2022. The data included results for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state controller, state treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction, along with senators and representatives at the state and federal levels. Altogether, the inquiry covered 1,748 races (667 general elections and 1,081 partisan primaries) over the decade. It revealed that:

In 91 percent of races, only one or two candidates ran for election, guaranteeing a majority winner.

Congressional and statewide executive elections were more likely than elections for legislative offices to attract a field of three or more candidates.

Overall, 11 percent of statewide executive races and 3 percent of state legislative races produced a plurality winner.

At the statewide and congressional levels, every instance of a plurality winner occurred in the Republican primaries.

Because the Republican Party dominates most general elections in Idaho, competitive elections play out mainly within Republican primaries. Plurality ...

Lessons from places that are solving the biggest problem in abundant housing politics and policy.

On Labor Day weekend, Sound Transit opened four more stops of its light rail line north of Seattle. But when I took my inaugural ride, I had my eye on something equally important as the shiny new transit line to the future of the region's cities: new apartment buildings sprouting up near the stations.

And not just any apartment buildings, but four of them built through a rare new policy that may be a key to digging out of the statewide housing shortage: funded inclusionary zoning.

Public investments in rail and bus transit create immense opportunities for healthy, low-carbon, economically diverse communities clustered around jobs, services, and transportation choices. But only if those communities also allow ample mixed-income housing to grow up alongside those hubs.

One way some North American cities have tried to meet that challenge is by requiring private developers to offer a set percentage of their new apartments at reduced rents, known as inclusionary zoning (IZ). But there's a big problem with that. If the IZ mandate is unfunded, it actually backfires: the rent revenue lost on the required affordable apartments can make it a money-losing proposition to construct the building in the first place, and homebuilders walk away from projects altogether. This conventional model of IZ - unfunded inclusionary zoning - impedes construction of much-needed affordable and market-rate homes, and squanders the new transit-unlocked opportunities.

The good news is there's a way to avoid the unfunded-IZ backfire: use public dollars to cover the cost of the affordability mandate. That is, funded inclusionary zoning.

When IZ is funded in this way it doesn't harm the financial feasibility of homebuilding, and so it avoids the unintended consequences of unfunded IZ that worsen the housing shortage and make rents higher for everyone. And funded IZ still ensures that all new apartment buildings include affordable homes and create mixed-income communities.

In the following I:

discuss why funded inclusionary zoning is both good politics and good policy, and that it matters how you fund it

share examples of places doing it already (Portland, Baltimore, Chicago, Shoreline, and Washington state's optional version), and

specify how Washington legislators could enable this powerful tool to help more residents find the homes they need and want, all across the Evergreen State.

Legalizing larger apartment buildings near jobs and transit is a critical piece of unfinished business for cities throughout North America to meet the long backlog of homes residents need - from young people starting out to retirees downsizing their digs, growing families to growing workforces. Unlike unfunded inclusionary zoning that can backfire and thwart that goal, funded IZ can unlock an abundance of homes - including income-restricted homes - in urban centers with both employment opportunities and robust transit connectivity. For Washington state in particular, funded IZ offers a solution for equitably leveraging the state's transit investments and creating communities where all neighbors are welcome.

What's different about funded inclusionary zoning

Funded IZ is good politics

Funded IZ is not just a smart policy solution. It's also a promising political solution.

Proposals to allow large apartment buildings tend to intensify disagreement over affordability requirements, which can fracture the broad coalition needed to pass zoning legislation. Case in point: Washington state's transit-oriented development (TOD) bill to legalize apartments near transit that died two years in a row.

State legislatures across North America are also susceptible to the impasse that played out in Washington: most left-leaning Democratic legislators won't vote for a TOD bill without IZ, while many centrist Democrats and all Republicans won't vote for a bill with IZ. Even when policymakers are commit...

How Alaskans have responded to nonpartisan open primaries and ranked choice voting.

In 2020 Alaska led the country on election reform by adopting a combination of nonpartisan open primaries and ranked choice general elections, jettisoning its previous system of semi-closed primaries and plurality general elections.

Four years later, Alaska has more company.

Voters in multiple states, both red and blue, will decide in November whether to emulate Alaska's system (or adopt variations) for their own elections. Montana voters are considering open primaries and mandating majority-winner elections. South Dakota voters will decide whether to open their primaries. Oregon voters will choose whether to adopt ranked choice voting for party-run primaries and general elections. Voters in Idaho and Nevada are considering an Alaska-style system of nonpartisan open primaries and allowing voters to rank candidates in general elections. And Washington, DC, is looking at allowing independents into party-controlled primaries and using ranked choice voting in general elections.

Alaska can show other states and our nation's capital what to expect with these election reforms. Nonpartisan open primaries and ranked choice voting took effect in the state in 2022 and brought about the following changes:

Political parties used to make the rules for primary elections. Now, laws approved by voters govern the primaries.

Candidates popular with general election voters no longer face the prospect of "getting primaried" - i.e., losing in the primary to candidates who appeal to the smaller, often less representative pool of primary voters.

Lawmakers have more freedom to work with colleagues of different political backgrounds on practical policy solutions without fear of electoral backlash.

Independent candidates can now run for office under the same rules as candidates who belong to a political party rather than having to fulfill extra requirements to get on the ballot.

Voters in the general election no longer have to worry about "wasting" their vote on a "spoiler candidate." That is, they don't have to vote for a candidate they're not excited about just to keep their least-favorite candidate from winning.

Ranked choice general elections ensure winners have the support of a majority of voters, not just more voters than any other candidate.

How Alaska's system works: Nonpartisan open primaries and ranked choice general elections

Alaskans choose their lawmakers using a combination of nonpartisan open primaries and ranked choice general elections.

In the primary election, voters choose one favorite from a list of all the candidates. The top four candidates in each race, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked choice general election.

In general election races with three or more candidates, voters rank the contenders from most to least favorite. Once the polls close, election officials count everyone's first-choice vote. Candidates who receive a majority of the first-choice votes (more than 50 percent) win in the first round. If no candidate achieves a majority with first-choice votes alone, then the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. The voters who prefer the eliminated candidate have their vote for their next preference on their ballot counted. This process continues until a candidate receives majority support.

Alaska's current system applies to the races for US House, US Senate, governor, and state legislature. The presidential election is a little different. Alaska's Republican and Democratic parties still control the presidential primaries, but Alaska uses ranked choice voting in the general election to determine which candidate receives the state's three electoral votes.

A then vs. now comparison: Alaska elections and politics

Then: The state paid for primary elections, but political parties made the rules.

Now: The state pays for primaries and runs them according to voter-approved laws.

Before Alaska switched to nonp...