Wilson Building Bulletin: Ward 8 and the case for ranked-choice voting

A case for ranked-choice voting in the Ward 8 race

There may well have been two winners in Tuesday’s special election in Ward 8: Trayon White, who is projected to take back the seat he was expelled from in February over a federal bribery indictment, and ranked-choice voting. Ironically enough, had the election been conducted with ranked-choice voting, White could well have lost.

Despite a federal trial hanging over his head (he has pleaded not guilty), White is currently leading over a field of three challengers, claiming 28.1% of the 7,806 ballots that had been counted (late-arriving mail ballots get counted through July 25, but aren’t expected to change the outcome). That’s enough to claim victory and, for White, a mandate.

“The people have spoken,” he said on Tuesday night.

But it wasn’t lost on many that more people actually spoke for the challengers – Sheila Bunn, Mike Austin, and Salim Adofo – who together accounted for 5,524 votes, more than double what White netted. But since they had split those votes three ways, White was able to sneak by with a plurality. In a video posted the morning after the election, White seemed to concede this reality. “Not everyone voted for me,” he said. “But enough voted for me to win.”

Frustration with that reality was palpable in some quarters. 

“It’s really depressing,” said Phil Pannell, a longtime Ward 8 activist who endorsed Adofo. “Yesterday was really bad, considering that [14%] of the registered voters participated and 70% rejected political corruption, but because of our antiquated political process [White] won with 30% of the vote. Yesterday could have been avoided… with ranked-choice voting.”

So how might ranked-choice voting have played out in Tuesday’s election? It’s impossible to say with certainty, but we can at least game it out. 

Voters would have been asked to rank the four candidates in order of preference. Based on the actual results of Tuesday’s election, none of the candidates would have surpassed the 50% threshold needed for victory on the first round of vote-counting. White would be ahead with just under 30% of the vote, with Bunn, Austin, and Adofo each pulling between 22% and 24% of the vote. 

With the fewest votes, Adofo would have been dropped in the second round of counting. Those votes would then be allocated to his voters’ second choices (if they made one), tightening the race. If no candidate still reached 50%, it would rinse and repeat into a third round, ultimately resulting in a head-to-head matchup between two candidates – say, White and Bunn – and a victor who claimed the majority of votes cast, and a popular mandate.

“A number of people have been texting me, ‘You were right about ranked-choice voting,’” Pannell tells me. “It’s sad.”

Now, special elections have always been low-turnout affairs. Some argue that the problem is really that civic and political leaders in Ward 8 did not come together to settle on a single challenger to run against White. (He did not respond to a request for comment.) Others note that you win elections with the system you have, not the one you wish you had.

“In our form of elections, how we elect candidates, the one that gets the most out of all the votes wins,” says Troy Donte Prestwood, the chairman of the Ward 8 Democrats. 

He thinks many Ward 8 voters are now thinking about more pressing issues than how the election outcome might have been different with ranked-choice voting – including whether the council will expel White again. (It takes a super-majority to do so, and there’s some thinking that White’s victory could dissuade some lawmakers from expelling him again. He will stand trial in January, and if found guilty, would immediately lose his seat.) But Prestwood concedes it’s been on his mind.

“I will not say that I am in favor of ranked-choice voting. But this could be the last time the District uses the traditional system,” he says. “We’re in the dawn of a new way of voting.” 

That’s because on Monday – the day before Ward 8 voters cast their ballots – the D.C. Council voted to fund the implementation of ranked-choice voting, following last November’s resounding victory for Initiative 83. The initiative to adopt ranked-choice voting and semi-open primaries was supported by 73% of voters citywide – including 72% in Ward 8 (Pannell was the campaign’s treasurer). 

Of course, support for ranked-choice voting isn’t universal – not in D.C., nor on the council. The D.C. Democratic Party strongly opposed it, suing in court to stop it. And during a debate on Monday, At-Large Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie expressed strong reservations, saying it has the potential to confuse and disenfranchise minority and low-income voters who might not rank all the choices available to them. (Some studies have shown this can happen, though others say it’s not a significant concern.) 

Pannell takes issue with the argument. “It’s very insulting to Black folks to think that we can’t comprehend something like ranking choices,” he says. “We do it all the time in our daily lives. People apply for public housing, parents rank schools in the D.C. school lottery. Is that too confusing?”

We might find out next year.

Tr-AI-on finds a new supporter

Earlier this week, a woman named Zahara recorded a video with a message: It’s important for Ward 8 residents to vote in the special election that took place on Tuesday, and if they planned to, Trayon White would be a good choice. 

The problem? Zahara isn’t a D.C. voter or even very well-versed in local politics. And, more importantly, she’s not even a real person. 

The video – which was posted by White to his 82,000 followers on Instagram – was created using generative artificial intelligence software that allows anyone to pick an AI avatar, write them a script, and produce a slick-looking video of what looks like a real person just sharing their opinion. (Just bear witness to my own AI masterpiece above.) And spare the somewhat stilted delivery, it would be challenging for some to know that Zahara is basically an internet robot. (OK, fine, I’m talking about me; I initially fell for it.)

Now, to note: There’s nothing unlawful in D.C. with creating or sharing an AI-generated campaign video. In fact, it’s a pretty cost-effective way to spread a message (especially since White raised no money for his campaign), and it isn’t particularly different from traditional political ads with actors pretending to be concerned citizens. (White did not respond to a request for comment. I guess we could ask Zahara?)

Of course, as AI has gotten much more accessible and powerful, there have been concerns about how it could be used for nefarious purposes during electoral campaigns. These creations – known as  “deepfakes” – have already been used to mimic former president Joe Biden’s voice on a robocall and create fake images of congressional candidates. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams even employed AI for robocalls, using his voice in different languages that he doesn’t actually speak.

At least 26 states have already moved to ban or require disclosures on AI-generated content used for political campaigns. (Here’s one example from California.) D.C. could be next. A broader campaign finance reform bill introduced by Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen this week (unrelated to White’s video) includes a provision that would require a disclosure on any audio, images, or video produced by AI for political campaigns. It would also prohibit election-related deepfakes within 90 days of an election.

“Campaigns for political office will always push the boundaries of what they can get away with,” says Allen, who has since made his point through Zahara herself. “Our laws must keep up and recognize where we can make elections fairer and stronger for voters.”

Of course, as with any restrictions or regulation of content, there are free speech concerns. According to a poll commissioned by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a plurality of respondents said it was more important to protect free speech than regulate potentially deceptive content. 

Things get personal between the D.C. Police Union and Phil Mendelson

Politics and policy differences got a little petty in D.C. this week.

On Tuesday, the D.C. Police Union – which represents rank-and-file officers – took to X to accuse D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson of calling the police on “peaceful protesters” in front of his house. 

The union alleged that Mendelson screamed at police and 911 dispatchers for a slow response, and later got a permanent security detail posted at his house, while complaining that the city has the lowest number of cops in decades. “We now have to dedicate one of them to be a security blanket for a man who hates cops, while other people calling 911 for real emergencies will have to wait," the union wrote. "This nonsense must end immediately.”

Disagreements between the police union and councilmembers are nothing new, but these missives raised some eyebrows within the Wilson Building for just how personal they were – and how they seemed to publicize 911 calls made by someone the union has tussled with over the years. Mendelson and his neighbors also took issue with some of the claims the union made, starting with why police were called.

The protest was indeed peaceful, but neighbors tell me it wasn’t pleasant – and current law doesn’t allow them. Protesters associated with the D.C. chapter of the Restaurant Opportunities Center gathered outside Mendelson’s Capitol Hill home around 12:30 a.m. on Monday, using pots and pans and a megaphone to yell at him about a proposed repeal of Initiative 82 the council was set to vote on. (It failed.) Multiple families were woken up, calling the police to come clear the protesters.

Such protests are unlawful under an emergency law passed by the council last fall that prohibits the use of amplification for protests outside residential homes from 7 p.m. to 9 a.m. According to MPD, the first call came at 12:34 a.m., police arrived on the scene 10 minutes later, and the demonstrators dispersed with no arrests made. A police car was posted on Mendelson’s street for two days after the incident.

In a terse statement, Mendelson said the union’s claims are “made up and false.” In a follow-up interview with me, he says he did not scream at anyone nor did he request that a security detail be assigned to him. He’s also peeved that the union would share information about 911 calls made responding to the protest. “I think the union ought to keep quiet about security arrangements for elected officials,” he said. (The union didn’t respond to my request for more details on its messages.)

Relations between the union and much of the council have been on the rocks since at least 2020, when lawmakers passed multiple bills imposing new restrictions and disciplinary reforms in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests. The union has also accused the council of defunding the police (there was a one-year $15 million cut to the department’s $500+ million budget), which, when coupled with the discipline reforms, have led to a decrease in police staffing from roughly 3,800 officers around 2020 to just over 3,100 today, union officials say. In the last few years, Bowser proposed and the council approved significant hiring incentives for police.

As a means to get around the council, outspoken union president Gregg Pemberton has established close relations with congressional Republicans, urging them to repeal specific police discipline laws and provisions passed by local lawmakers. In June, the GOP-led House approved a measure repealing a D.C. law that prohibits the union from bargaining on disciplinary issues and requires that schedules of police disciplinary hearings be posted publicly. (It has yet to be taken up in the Senate.) 

Meanwhile,  the council gave initial approval to the 2026 budget this week – which includes more than $600 million for the police department (not including overtime), 4.8% more than the current year.