Election officials warn ranked‑choice rollout would require equipment and legal changes; supporters defend home rule and voter choice

The Senate General Government Committee heard a contentious third hearing March 18 on Senate Bill 63, which would ban ranked‑choice voting (RCV) for local, state and federal elections in Ohio and withhold state funding from municipalities that adopt it.

Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, told the committee the county is neutral on the policy question but raised detailed administrative concerns: “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,” he said, citing limitations in ballot creation, tabulation and official certification timelines. Perlotti warned that implementing RCV statewide likely would require a single uniform vendor and substantial new costs, and could delay results because of the need to process absentee and provisional ballots and, potentially, certify multiple tabulation rounds.

Proponents of RCV pushed back. Dozens of witnesses — including local elected officials, nonprofit advocates and national experts who administer RCV in other states — argued that the technology and procedures exist, that other U.S. jurisdictions have implemented RCV successfully, and that municipal home rule should allow cities and counties to experiment with election methods. “Ranked choice voting gives voters more freedom to choose candidates based on their preferences,” said Denise Riley of Rank to Vote Ohio.

Josh Daniels, a former election administrator in Utah who testified as a technical expert, said many Ohio voting systems already have RCV capabilities or can be upgraded: “73 of your 88 counties have a vendor system that right now has federally certified approved software that can facilitate ranked choice voting,” he told senators, and described implementing RCV without changing core tabulation hardware.

Supporters said RCV can reduce polarization, elect candidates with broader support and eliminate costly runoffs. Opponents, including groups that have pushed for bans in other states, warned of ballot exhaustion, delayed results, programming errors and voter confusion. Cameron Scholte of Heartland Impact cited recent defeats of RCV ballot initiatives and litigation risks; pro‑RCV witnesses countered that many voter complaints stem from rollout problems that can be fixed with public education and careful ballot design.

The committee received dozens of written and in‑person submissions from both sides. Several senators pressed for concrete cost estimates and asked whether counties could administer mixed ballots (some contests RCV, others not) and how RCV would interact with Ohio’s election certification schedule. No vote was recorded at the hearing. The bill’s sponsors and opponents signaled the debate will continue in subsequent committee work.

Ending: The hearing spotlighted a technical and policy dispute: election directors stressed equipment and certification barriers, while RCV advocates emphasized home rule, examples from other states and the possibility of incremental implementation and software upgrades.