Heated hearings on SB 63: elections officials warn of technical barriers; advocates say ban would block local home rule

A broad and contentious hearing on Senate Bill 63 — legislation that would ban ranked choice voting (RCV) in Ohio — produced sharply divided testimony on March 18 as election administrators warned of technical and legal hurdles while advocates and local officials urged cities and counties be allowed to experiment.

Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, told the committee that “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,” and described complications in ballot creation, tabulation and certification for contests that mix ranked and non-ranked contests. He told senators the county could face multi-page ballots, more adjudication work and longer tabulation timelines if RCV were implemented without a statewide, uniform system.

Proponents said local governments should be laboratories of democracy. Former and current local officials, civic groups and national RCV advocates described RCV as a reform that can increase majority support, encourage more civil campaigning and expand voter choice. Denise Riley of Rank the Vote Ohio said RCV “requires a candidate to secure a 50% majority rather than a mere plurality, incentivizing politicians to truly listen to the people they serve.”

The exchange turned on practical implementation and cost. Several committee members cited testimony that moving to a single statewide certified system could cost tens of millions; proponents cited readiness studies and experience in other states. Josh Daniels, former election administrator in Utah County, said his office used existing ES&S infrastructure and “73 of your 88 counties have a vendor system that right now has federally certified approved software that can facilitate ranked choice voting,” and urged the committee not to foreclose local experimentation.

Opponents — including national groups and some citizen witnesses — warned of ballot exhaustion, voter confusion, slower results and the risk of software or tabulation errors. Beau Uten of FGA Action testified that RCV is “a disaster” and cited delayed results and cases where large numbers of ballots were exhausted or not counted in other jurisdictions.

Several witnesses raised legal and procedural questions: whether rounds of an RCV tabulation require repeated certification, how provisional and absentee ballots should be included in rounds, and whether current Ohio election statutes and secretary-of-state directives would need revision. A number of witnesses asked for a substantial lead time and voter-education campaigns if jurisdictions move to RCV.

The committee record shows both organized opposition from national groups and a sizable body of local proponents who argued SB 63 would preempt local home rule. No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Senators questioned feasibility, costs and how RCV would interact with the recently passed data-act standardization for election reporting.

The hearing closed with the chair noting additional written testimony in committee materials and adjournment of the session.