Whatcom County auditor: ranked‑choice voting requires system upgrades and sizable upfront costs

Whatcom County Auditor Stacy Hindhorn told the Charter Review Commission on the technical and budgetary steps the county would need to adopt ranked‑choice voting, saying the minimum implementation cost is significant and regulatory certification is required.

Hindhorn said during the commission’s elections deep dive that the county’s current voting vendor is testing a ranked‑choice voting (RCV) module and that Whatcom County could not install the module until the Election Assistance Commission and the Washington secretary of state certify the vendor’s version. "The minimum cost to implement RCV is $256,000, but the actual and ongoing cost will be much higher," Hindhorn said. She told commissioners the vendor estimated a $50,000 charge to install the RCV module and about $14,000 a year in maintenance if the county chose to add the RCV capability.

The auditor’s presentation explained how the county’s election technology is organized: a statewide voter registration database, a mail‑sorting system used to intake ballots and a certified tabulation system. Hindhorn said Clear Ballot’s ClearVote system (ClearVote 2.3 in Whatcom County) is not connected to the county network or the internet, and that the county would not install an uncertified module. She listed practical issues the county would need to resolve before implementation: ballot layout and paper‑size constraints, voter‑intent adjudication procedures, hand‑count audit approaches, voter education, and additional staffing and training needs.

Why it matters: converting to ranked‑choice voting changes not only ballot counting but ballot design, voter outreach and post‑election auditing. Hindhorn said those changes have recurring costs and legal and administrative implications that would fall to the auditor’s office and, ultimately, to taxpayers.

Public commenters at the meeting were split. "I would like to speak in favor of some form of ranked choice voting," said Andy Bree, who described the system as a way to reduce polarization. Nicole Kingborough, identified herself as president of the Whatcom County Association of Realtors and urged the commission to adopt RCV, saying it would "allow voters to vote with their conscience" and offer more choices. Several other residents spoke in favor, citing experiences with RCV in other countries and U.S. jurisdictions.

Others opposed or urged caution. Misty Flowers told the commission, "Ranked choice voting is extremely confusing. Voters need to be more educated, and RCV skews the vote and makes it extremely hard for any of us to know if who we got voted on would actually get in." Hindhorn reiterated that adoption would require certified software and additional administrative procedures and noted the county could not move forward until ClearVote version 2.5 (the vendor release that includes an RCV module) completes federal and state certification.

Commissioners asked questions about costs, ballot length and turnout effects. Hindhorn said a fiscal note in the packet addressed major cost categories and noted that implementing RCV is "not just a software upgrade" but a change to election procedures that could trigger legal and staffing implications and requires voter education.

The auditor said she would provide follow‑up details on specific cost items, audit procedures and timelines if the commission asked staff to draft a formal proposal for the ballot. Hindhorn said the auditor’s office would not install uncertified equipment and that any RCV module must be certified by the EAC and the Washington secretary of state before use.

Looking ahead: commissioners did not take a formal vote on RCV at the meeting. Hindhorn said she would remain available to answer technical follow‑up questions and to provide more detailed fiscal options if the commission seeks to advance the reform in ordinance or a charter amendment.