[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6630902,"mediaKeyId","2688551-26cd150d9f7d9ddfee3d8acc80d8633a","parentId",2688551,"title","Subcommittee holds hearing on bill to ban ranked‑choice voting in Georgia; witnesses split on runoffs, turnout and military carve‑out","audioSeconds",4791,"startMs",1311000,"endMs",6102000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688551-26cd150d9f7d9ddfee3d8acc80d8633a&start=1311&end=6102","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688551-26cd150d9f7d9ddfee3d8acc80d8633a/thumbnail_1311000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6630902/Georgia/Subcommittee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-rankedchoice-voting-in-Georgia-witnesses-split-on-runoffs-turnout-and-military-carveout","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630902-64561b19179fee026d43c7276bfbaa2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165204&Signature=fpn8Iof35c9zehsqPSK3VbRrizmtI89I5ypEKvhu4ZVrxdCPuCY0lx5W5HeSVDIHYeIAbs80H-Ip2wdv6nQwGoqB2~Oih-KPv1IPuSIG538MNi4oIZipJaKpfJR639yTK2A8Iyjs4U0~V4nTBuWSp6r0CyxWk4vTOY8dWGuPegeL9JedpaIHy0Yx13PnRbdFCR0dLuDlOyRs7lQHz2XpbVKMWSGkih56VFwktLOQ0s6aRl0Hst7qphnjcEwa2G15bJOC7X3eIFkCD2Iloennp2jblHVa4xhwtLA4GL37N8C6hUwFlLDv9rQVaIucSh9Mk3BNdU1LLbqSxfQ-0napxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of Georgia ","date","2025-03-18T22:12:03.72Z","article","A Governmental Affairs subcommittee held a hearing on legislation that would ban ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in Georgia except for a limited carve‑out for uniformed and overseas voters. The hearing produced extended debate between the bill’s sponsor and a broad set of witnesses who emphasized differing priorities: voter clarity and uniform statewide rules versus reducing runoff costs and offering local pilot options.

Senator Robertson, the bill’s sponsor, told the panel the measure “outlaws rank choice voting in Georgia” and argued RCV has produced confusion in other jurisdictions. Robertson described concerns ranging from ballots with many choices to delayed results in some places and said the bill is “a very simple bill.” He indicated he would accept a friendly amendment to preserve RCV access for military and overseas voters in limited circumstances.

Supporters of the bill — including some testimony from voters and advocates — raised concerns about ballot complexity and transparency. Tamara Favorito of VoterGA told the committee RCV ballots can be “extremely complicated” and said federal write‑in ballots could be used for overseas voters instead of RCV. Garland Favarito and others described episodes they said showed RCV ballots would be difficult for some populations and argued the legislature should preemptively ban the method.

Opponents — including local activists, election‑reform groups and nonpartisan experts — said RCV can address the runoffs problem and reduce the cost and turnout drop associated with runoffs. Several witnesses representing Georgia‑based volunteer groups and national organizations explained how RCV has been used in municipalities and states to eliminate low‑turnout runoffs and to change campaign incentives. Testimony included:
- Scott Turner (Eternal Vigilance Action) and Ben Rowley (Better Ballot Georgia) cited local runoff turnout drops and local budget costs, saying RCV would reduce repeated elections that attract far fewer voters. Turner submitted a list of runoff turnout figures that showed large drop‑offs in municipal runoffs.
- Chris Saxman and Chris Hughes described experiences in other states where RCV was used to avoid bruising intra‑party contests and to limit turnout erosion between rounds; Saxman cited Virginia Republican party use where ranked balloting influenced candidate behavior and campaign civility.
- Deb Otis (FairVote) and Chris Hughes (The Resource Center) addressed isolated implementation errors in other jurisdictions, saying some issues were human or machine errors not inherently caused by RCV and that strong post‑election audits and administration can mitigate risks.

Multiple speakers pressed for local flexibility: several municipal representatives and citizens said cities and counties that want to pilot RCV for local, nonpartisan contests should be allowed to do so. Better Ballot Georgia said jurisdictions representing roughly 15% of the state population have passed resolutions requesting permission to try RCV locally.

The bill’s military/overseas carve‑out drew sustained attention. Senator Robertson and other members acknowledged the unique timing and logistics faced by deployed service members; several veterans who testified said they had successfully used RCV ballots while deployed. Opponents and the League of Women Voters asked for voter education or pilot programs rather than a statewide ban. Garland Favarito and others argued federal options like the UOCAVA write‑in ballot could address equal‑protection concerns for overseas voters without requiring RCV.

A motion by the chair to limit public comment time to one minute failed for lack of a second. The subcommittee did not take final action on the underlying bill during the hearing; the chair described the day as “a hearing only” and said the committee would hear additional testimony at a future date if needed.

The hearing illustrated a divide between members and stakeholders over priorities: some committee members and witnesses emphasized ballot clarity and uniform statewide rules, while others prioritized reducing local election costs and preserving local options. The committee concluded the session without a vote on the measure.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Governmental Affairs Elections Subcommittee 03.18.25","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers held a lengthy hearing on a bill that would outlaw ranked‑choice voting in Georgia, with proponents citing voter confusion and opponents arguing RCV can reduce costly runoffs and increase voter choice; witnesses also debated a carve‑out for military and overseas voters.","taxTitle","Governmental Affairs, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Georgia","taxId",17215,"location","Georgia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6630907,"Georgia subcommittee advances bill shifting local campaign filings to state, expanding pre‑election complaint moratorium",809,436000,1245000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688551-26cd150d9f7d9ddfee3d8acc80d8633a&start=436&end=1245","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688551-26cd150d9f7d9ddfee3d8acc80d8633a/thumbnail_436000.jpg","/articles/6630907/Georgia/Georgia-subcommittee-advances-bill-shifting-local-campaign-filings-to-state-expanding-preelection-complaint-moratorium","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630907-353d0b141bfc50ae21c029c5960c67c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165204&Signature=W3H4JWoxd7O99qmRjTeS0yIT1A-PGOT4zalBaRP5ihTjm4ftl71qgwkrDw0hZnLlk-JT7RqwtVIktB8whHrCJ6uBohH6xns0X0jtCAXUrHcFGXXw5FSH-Ff2jujtk~QqmDAtSnwf9rMSDmQLZ2rysHI1j9m1KDSQ2F2vK-JYrIXSqG1kvYnth2RRMfMRzMqaK1PyB2wVCb2C7ynpTsIu6UTgPXyTPp9xuQ5bQ5-sBqJnvLqJye5j-C7rPaD-xwamuPYUbFaAgV5tMIMdERAxNV0USruFdtflqESj6Bn7xyUBwN3kuBR-QsEJgcB-W5~iw-wz0MWK8pLFR6VDmXrlpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Georgia Governmental Affairs subcommittee voted to advance a bill that would move many local campaign filing obligations back to the state, expand the period before an election when ethics complaints may be paused, and change reporting schedules for campaigns, PACs and lobbyists.

Senator Watson, joined by Director Amati of the State Ethics Commission, told the subcommittee the bill would create uniform quarterly disclosure deadlines for candidate campaign committees and move local filing responsibilities to the state beginning Jan. 1, 2027. “This is just trying to provide uniformity in all the reporting and make things easier for folks and streamline things,” Watson said during his presentation.

The proposal would codify a 60‑day moratorium on publicly pursued ethics complaints prior to an election — up from a 30‑day period that currently exists by rule — and keep complaints from being accepted for formal action in that window. Representative Asania asked whether the bill still blocks complaints 60 days before an election; Watson confirmed it does, explaining the change aims to reduce last‑minute, potentially meritless filings. Watson told the committee that commission staff could still initiate investigations if a clear violation occurs, but that investigations begun very close to an election rarely can be completed in time.

The measure also would:
- Require campaigns’ periodic disclosure reports on Jan. 31, April 30, July 30 and Oct. 20 each year, with matching PAC reporting to conform to the quarterly cycle;
- Move annual financial disclosure reports to April 1 and establish ranges (not exact amounts) for some personal financial disclosures;
- Redact home addresses of public officials and candidates from public view while retaining commission access to the information; and
- Collapse multiple lobbyist reporting types into a single monthly registration and require lobbyists to file by the fifth day of each month.

Director Amati, identified in the hearing as the State Ethics Commission’s executive secretary, joined Watson at the podium for questions. Committee members pressed for data on how often complaints filed in the existing 30‑day window have led to findings; Watson said he would double‑check the historical numbers but told members most late‑filed complaints are meritless. The bill’s sponsor and staff said the 2027 start date is intended to give the state time to expand voter and candidate education ahead of the change.

Voter advocate Garland Favarito spoke in support of the bill during public comment, saying the current system can be weaponized against candidates and urging protections against late‑filed “fake” complaints.

The subcommittee made a motion and seconded it to advance the bill to full committee; the chair called a voice vote and said, “Motion carries. We'll have it in full committee questions.” The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.

If enacted, the bill would change filing cadence and redaction practices statewide and create new monthly requirements for lobbyists; the measure’s backers said it will improve uniformity and ease burdens on filers, while some committee members asked staff to return with data about how often short‑window complaints produced substantive findings.

The subcommittee’s action was procedural: the bill was advanced for further review by the full committee and was not adopted into law at the hearing. The Ethics Commission and sponsor said education and an updated filing system are planned ahead of the bill’s proposed 2027 effective date.","A Governmental Affairs subcommittee advanced legislation that would centralize some local campaign filing duties at the state level, expand the pre‑election ethics complaint moratorium from 30 to 60 days and change reporting schedules for campaign committees, PACs and lobbyists.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee holds hearing on bill to ban ranked‑choice voting in Georgia; witnesses split on runoffs, turnout and military carve‑out

Georgia subcommittee advances bill shifting local campaign filings to state, expanding pre‑election complaint moratorium