Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Administration Ranked Choice Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears sharply divided testimony on SB 63 ban of ranked‑choice voting; election directors warn of equipment and certification gaps
Summary
Senate Bill 63, which would ban or penalize local use of ranked‑choice voting, drew divided testimony. Election officials warned of equipment and legal hurdles; proponents said RCV increases turnout and reduces polarization and urged respect for home rule.
The Senate General Government Committee held a lengthy third hearing on Senate Bill 63, a measure that would prohibit ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in Ohio's local, state and federal elections and impose penalties on jurisdictions that adopt it. Testimony split sharply: county election officials and national groups warned of implementation challenges, while local officials, voting‑rights advocates and out‑of‑state administrators described RCV as a proven reform that increases voter choice and reduces polarization.
Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, told the committee that current certified voting systems in Ohio lack an off‑the‑shelf capability to run mixed ballots with ranked and non‑ranked contests. "To the best of my knowledge, none of the 5 voting systems currently certified in Ohio are able to execute a ranked choice voting election," Perlotti said, citing concerns about ballot creation, tabulation and certification timelines. He described practical issues such as how to handle provisional and absentee ballots and whether each tabulation round of an RCV contest would require separate certification during the 21‑day canvass period.
Opponents of the ban said localities should be able to experiment with alternative voting systems under home‑rule authority. Denise Riley of Rank to Vote Ohio said RCV requires candidates to win a majority rather than a plurality and pointed to places where RCV increased turnout and voter satisfaction. "Ranked choice voting gives voters more choices and more power," she told the committee.
Utah election administrator Josh Daniels testified about hands‑on experience implementing RCV in Utah cities and said many Ohio counties already use vendor systems that can support ranked ballots after software configuration. "73 of your 88 counties have a vendor system that right now has federally certified approved software that can facilitate ranked choice voting," Daniels said, urging the committee to allow local experimentation and to budget for voter education rather than an outright ban.
Other witnesses emphasized contrasting data and policy risks. Proponents of the ban cited states and cities where RCV produced delays, exhausted ballots or errors; opponents pointed to studies and local experience showing high voter satisfaction and modest administrative cost when elections are well implemented. Several local charter commissions and municipal officials said they want to retain the ability to place RCV on local ballots and argued that the General Assembly should not pre‑empt local choices.
Perlotti and other boards of elections asked for a "runway" — time to adapt laws, software and administrative procedures — if the General Assembly were to permit RCV, and to address technical questions such as reporting formats, recount rules and ballot layouts.
No committee vote on SB 63 is recorded in the transcript; the hearing concluded after dozens of in‑person witnesses and written submissions were filed.
