Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ranked Choice Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ranked-choice voting draws sharply split testimony in Ohio Senate hearing; elections officials warn of technical hurdles
Summary
A third hearing on Senate Bill 63 produced broad public testimony both pro and con. Local election officials raised questions about equipment, certification and tabulation while numerous proponent witnesses urged preserving municipal home rule to allow local experiments with ranked-choice voting.
The Senate General Government Committee heard extensive proponent and opponent testimony on Senate Bill 63, a measure that would ban ranked-choice voting (RCV) for local, state and federal elections in Ohio and, in some cases, withhold state funds from localities that implement it.
Election administrators and local officials described legal, operational and technical obstacles to immediate implementation under Ohio’s current certified voting systems, while supporters of RCV urged the committee to respect home rule and allow localities to experiment with the voting method.
Election-administration concerns: Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, told the committee that “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,” and said creating ballots that mix ranked-choice and non-ranked contests and reporting both types of contests would present tabulation and certification challenges. He repeatedly emphasized the need for state and equipment-level changes before Ohio counties could carry out RCV at scale.
Proponents for local choice: Dozens of in-person and written witnesses urged the committee to reject the ban and to preserve municipal home rule. Janine Migden Ostrander said citizens “should have ranked choice voting if they want that option,” and argued that RCV “provides greater opportunities for centrists, less extremism, more officials working on both sides of the aisle together.” Several witnesses pointed to successful use of RCV in other U.S. cities and the states of Maine and Alaska.
Opponents and special-interest concerns: Opponents, including groups like FGA Action and Heartland Impact (both transmitting testimony in person), highlighted examples of delays and tabulation problems in some RCV jurisdictions and recent state-level repeals or bans. Beau Uten of FGA Action said voters “overwhelmingly rejected” RCV in six states in 2024 and urged the committee to pass a ban.
Balancing stability, home rule and technical feasibility: Multiple witnesses stressed that the issue involves both democratic theory and nuts-and-bolts election administration. Proponents cited court rulings and historical precedent for municipal adoption and recommended phased, localized pilots and voter education. Election officials said they need lead time, equipment/software certification and legal revisions to existing Ohio election statutes and secretary-of-state directives before any jurisdiction could reliably run ranked ballots.
Committee procedure: The hearing featured many in-person and written testimonies on both sides; committee members asked questions about certification costs, whether statewide vendor consolidation would be required, and how results could be reported on election night. No final committee vote on SB 63 was recorded at the hearing.
