Legislative counsel outlines ranked‑choice voting mechanics for presidential primary bill

Legislative counsel Tim Devlin gave the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee an overview of draft language that would implement ranked‑choice voting for major‑party presidential primaries, explaining the mechanics, key statutory definitions and implementation steps.

Devlin said the draft adopts an instant‑runoff form of ranked‑choice voting: voters rank candidates in order of preference on a single ballot; tabulation proceeds in rounds, eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes each round and reallocating those ballots to each voter’s next highest ranked active candidate until the stopping condition is reached (majority or party‑defined thresholds for delegate allocation). He noted the approach has been used in other U.S. jurisdictions (Maine and Alaska at the federal level, some municipal elections) and internationally.

Under the draft, each major political party must notify the secretary of state at least 150 days before the primary whether it will award delegates on a winner‑take‑all basis or on a proportional basis and, if proportional, the applicable threshold(s). If a party fails to provide direction, tabulation defaults to winner‑take‑all. The secretary of state would confirm by 120 days whether the state can implement the party’s preferences or whether any feasibility constraints exist.

Devlin reviewed detailed definitions added to the bill: active candidate, withdrawn candidate, inactive ballot, overvote, undervote, skip ranking, round, and threshold for receiving delegates. The bill treats ballots that become inactive (for example, due to an overvote or consecutive skipped rankings) as not counting in later rounds. Ties are resolved “by lot” (random selection) and the result of any tie‑break must be recorded and preserved for recounts. The bill also contemplates distinctions in tabulation when a party chooses winner‑take‑all (eliminate lowest until one candidate has most votes) versus proportional allocation (eliminate lowest until remaining candidates all exceed the party‑specified threshold, then award delegates proportionally).

Committee members asked operational questions about tabulation for towns that hand‑count; Devlin clarified that “tabulation” here refers to the sequential re‑counting or re‑tabulation that occurs after each elimination round — whether done by machine or by hand — because rounds require reallocation of ballots and repeated counting. Members also asked about recount procedures and the low probability but possible need for a random tie‑break mechanism.

Devlin recommended reading the bill’s appendix and overview pages (the draft referenced in committee as draft 1.5) to see the mechanics in context and said the committee would hear additional witnesses who have used ranked‑choice voting in other states. The committee paused the discussion to receive testimony from other speakers later in the meeting; no final vote on ranked‑choice language occurred during this session.