Ranked choice ban draws wide public debate; elections officials warn of technical hurdles

The committee’s third hearing on Senate Bill 63 — legislation that would prohibit or restrict ranked choice voting (RCV) in Ohio — drew dozens of proponents and opponents, a long panel of municipal leaders and election experts, and sharp disagreement over technical feasibility and local control.

Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, testified that the county is neutral on whether RCV should be adopted but raised technical and statutory concerns about conducting ranked elections with Ohio’s currently certified voting systems. “To the best of my knowledge, none of the five voting systems currently certified in Ohio are able to execute a ranked choice voting election,” Perlotti said, adding that counties would need software and equipment changes and that questions about certification, tabulation, recounts and the certification timeline would have to be resolved well in advance of any election.

Proponents of RCV said the system increases voter choice, reduces polarization by encouraging broader campaigning and can be implemented without prohibitive cost. Several witnesses described jurisdictions where RCV was adopted successfully and pointed to studies showing increased turnout and voter satisfaction. Supporters urged that home‑rule municipalities be allowed to experiment with RCV and cautioned against a statewide prohibition.

Opponents, including organized groups from outside the state and some local residents, argued RCV is complex, can lead to ballot exhaustion (where ballots no longer count in later rounds), and may delay final results. Witnesses cited recent ballot‑counting issues in other jurisdictions and warned of potential litigation and administrative confusion if RCV were implemented without uniform statewide planning.

The hearing featured a mix of local elected officials, longtime poll workers and national advocates. Proponent speakers included local council members and charter review commissioners who said their communities carefully considered RCV at the local level and wished to retain the option. Opponents included policy groups that urged the General Assembly to bar RCV statewide; one witness recommended placing a ban in statute or on the statewide ballot.

Committee members repeatedly asked how implementation would work in practice. Perlotti and other elections officials said implementing RCV statewide could require moving to a single certified statewide voting system or a coordinated upgrade process; they estimated substantial costs and warned that reporting ranked rounds may not be available on election night under current infrastructure. Supporters pointed to recent software advances and examples from other states where vendors supported RCV through existing certified equipment or routine upgrades.

No vote on the bill was taken at the hearing. Testimony demonstrated a sharp policy choice between safeguarding uniform election administration and preserving local control as a laboratory for democratic reforms.