IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

You can now browse through past ballot comments using the tools below.


1st Period Comments on BALLOT #1 - 2022

Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALABAMA
Support

ALBERTA
Support Alberta is generally supportive but shares the concern expressed by other jurisdictions that there should be a minimum number of jurisdictions voting or a qourum to pass an amendment.

It is also not clear if this will apply to the other 2022 ballots.

ARKANSAS
Support

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Support

CONNECTICUT
Support

GEORGIA
Support

IDAHO
Support

ILLINOIS
Undecided Illinois conditionally agrees with the ballot objective, which is to eliminate the counting of a “non-vote” as a “no vote”. 

An affirmative vote of three-fourths of the total eligible member jurisdictions who vote is required to amend the Articles of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual.
 
Since member jurisdictions who abstain from voting will no longer be included in a vote tally, an amendment could be passed/defeated without a majority of eligible members voting. Ballot #1, as it is currently written, is deficient without any required quorum of eligible member jurisdictions who must vote.  Illinois would agree with this ballot initiative if such a quorum is established.
 

INDIANA
Support Indiana supports this ballot that a non-vote does not count as a "No", but we also wonder about a minimum number of votes to pass if voting activity is light as has been mentioned in other comments.
In addition, the effective date is upon passage, does that mean if the ballots are voted on in order, that this approved ballot is effective for all subsequent ballot votes within the same session?
 

KANSAS
Support

KENTUCKY
Support

MANITOBA
Undecided Manitoba agrees with the comments made by Illinois.  With no minimum quorum set, an amendment could pass with few jurisdictions voting.

MARYLAND
Support

MICHIGAN
Support

MINNESOTA
Support MN Supports this ballot as written 

MISSOURI
Support

NEBRASKA
Support Nebraska supports the ballot, but agrees that adding quorum language would be preferrable. 

NEW BRUNSWICK
Support

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Oppose North Carolina has multiple concerns with this ballot. First, because the ballot is proposing the effective change be upon passage, it becomes unclear whether the other seven (7) ballots will be affected by this change. This should be made clear to the jurisdictions when a vote is made on whether to make it effective immediately.
 
Second, a minimum number of votes casts or a quorum should be required to change the Articles of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual. It is possible, although unlikely, that a handful of votes could fundamentally change how IFTA functions and how it regulates the activities of motor carriers.  
 
Comparisons to legislation, parliamentary procedures, and other voting procedures have been brought up as justification for this change. However, they are not apt comparisons because of the lack of a quorum requirement.  For organizations (see e.g., IFTA Inc. Bylaws) and legislatures (see e.g., U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 1) quorums are required before action can be taken. Moving forward, although many ballots will be voted upon at the ABM, this will not apply in all circumstances.
 
Third, the voting procedure should maintain the ability for a jurisdiction to abstain from voting. This is a strategic decision that should not be removed, and it maintains the ballot's purpose of encouraging voting. There are legitimate reasons to allow a jurisdiction a vote to abstain. For example, there may be a conflict of interest for a particular member jurisdiction and that jurisdiction may feel that it is in the best interests of the jurisdiction or the organization to abstain from voting. The ability to abstain serves an important function in allowing a jurisdiction to tell the IFTA community that it has abstained. Also, as a practical matter, when votes are submitted at the ABM, not allowing an abstention will unnecessarily complicate the process if a jurisdiction is ready, willing, and able to submit a vote but chooses not to.
 
As shown in North Carolina's suggested language, a quorum would be required. When a ballot is cast when not at a meeting, an abstention will count to determine whether there is a quorum but will not affect the outcome of the vote. North Carolina is open whether a quorum is a majority of the total eligible member jurisdictions or 2/3 of the total eligible member jurisdictions. However, 2/3 would be consistent with the IFTA Inc. bylaws.

North Carolina would support this ballot if a quorum requirement was added.

Please see the following link for our suggested changes: Click Here

NORTH DAKOTA
Support

ONTARIO
Support

OREGON
Support

PENNSYLVANIA
Support PA recognizes there are both positive aspects and negative concerns to this ballot. Our opinion is that the original voting thresholds were in place for good reason; that the agreement should not be adjusted without an overwhelming majority in support of change; however, we realize the purpose of this ballot is to gain compliance, voting participation, and make the IFTA voting process more sensible based on historical and logistical voting trends, availability to vote, and any other situations that may arise that could impede the jurisdictions' voting processes; therefore, we support this ballot overall...

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Undecided PEI Agrees with Illinois' comments.

QUEBEC
Support

SASKATCHEWAN
Support

SOUTH CAROLINA
Support

SOUTH DAKOTA
Support

TENNESSEE
Support

VIRGINIA
Support

WASHINGTON
Support

WEST VIRGINIA
Support

WYOMING
Support
Support: 30
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 3