Ranked choice voting debate draws sharp split: election officials warn of technical hurdles; advocates argue for majority rule

The Senate General Government Committee held a third hearing on Senate Bill 63 and heard sharply divided testimony over whether Ohio should ban ranked choice voting (RCV) in local, state and federal elections.

Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said the county is neutral on whether RCV is desirable but warned of operational and legal barriers under current Ohio-certified voting systems and election law. “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 told the committee. He cited concerns including ballot creation that mixes ranked and non‑ranked contests, tabulation and reporting of mixed contest types, certification timing for provisional and absentee ballots, recount procedures and the need for extensive voter education.

Proponents of RCV—local elected officials, civic groups and former election administrators—argued the system produces winners with majority support, reduces polarization and can be implemented without prohibitive cost. Denise Riley of Rank the Vote Ohio said RCV “requires a candidate to secure a 50% majority rather than a mere plurality,” and witnesses pointed to examples in Maine and Alaska and municipal experience in cities such as Minneapolis and San Francisco. Josh Daniels, an election administrator who implemented RCV in Utah, told the committee that many Ohio voting vendors already offer RCV-capable software and that implementing cities can use existing tabulation hardware with software updates; he said local jurisdictions should budget for voter education.

Opponents—including national and state groups and some local election‑administration advocates—said RCV can produce ballot exhaustion and discarded ballots when voters do not or cannot rank additional preferences, delay final results beyond election night, and introduce costly complexity. Beau Eaton of FGA Action described RCV as “a disaster” and cited multi‑state defeats of RCV ballot initiatives in 2024 and individual jurisdictions’ technical incidents.

Several witnesses pressed the committee on implementation specifics: whether counties would need a single statewide voting system or whether software upgrades across existing vendors would suffice; if certification would have to occur round‑by‑round; and who would pay for equipment, upgrades and the required voter education. Perlotti suggested a statewide uniform vendor or significant lead time for counties to adapt systems and procedures.

The hearing included dozens of written and oral testimonies from both Ohio residents and national organizations. No committee vote on SB 63 is recorded in the transcript; the session closed after pro and con testimony and the committee noted many written submissions on members’ iPads.