Kansas committee hears bill to ban ranked-choice voting statewide

The Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs on Wednesday held a hearing on Senate Bill 6, which would prohibit any form of ranked‑choice voting for federal, state, county or municipal offices in Kansas and would void local ordinances or regulations adopting ranked‑choice methods before July 1 of this year.

The bill’s sponsor and committee staff asked a Revisor’s Office analyst, Jason Long of the Revisor’s Office, to summarize the proposal. Long said Senate Bill 6 “defines ranked choice voting as that form of voting that allows voters to rank 2 or more candidates in order of preference and tabulates the ballots in multiple rounds with the elimination of the lowest vote receiving candidate after each round until there's a candidate that receives a majority of the votes cast,” and that the bill would “nullify any local ordinance resolution or regulation, that is adopted prior to July 1st this year.”

Why it matters: supporters said the bill would prevent what they described as voter confusion, discarded ballots and delayed results under ranked‑choice systems; opponents said ranked‑choice voting can produce majority winners, is understandable to voters and can boost enfranchisement at the local level. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing.

Proponents: Madeline Melissa, a visiting fellow with the nonprofit Opportunity Solutions Project, testified in support and described her experience voting under ranked‑choice systems in Maine. “It's been really a disaster here, for voters,” Melissa said, adding that some contests in other jurisdictions produced large numbers of ballots she characterized as “thrown out.” She cited several examples from other states and cities, including that “in 2018, in our 2nd congressional district, more than 8,000 Mainers had their ballots thrown out,” and that “in New York City's Democratic Mayoral Primary, 140,000 ballots were discarded.” Melissa argued ranked‑choice voting “guarantees multiple rounds of ballot counting, so it delays election results,” and urged support for the prohibition.

Neutral witness: Clay Barker, general counsel for the Kansas Secretary of State, said the office’s position is neutral because the measure “doesn't affect us directly,” but he outlined legal and administrative considerations. Barker noted Kansas law dating to 1861 (cited in testimony as current statute 25‑702) mandates plurality voting — “whoever gets the most votes wins” — and said the bill would tighten language to avoid differing interpretations. He also warned of administrative costs and complexity for counties if a jurisdiction attempted to implement ranked‑choice methods.

Opponents: Speakers and written testimony submitted in opposition argued ranked‑choice voting can be easy for voters and can create majority winners without the cost and logistics of a separate runoff election. Andrew Booze, a private citizen and member of Rank the Vote Kansas, told the committee the method “helps enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them” and cited a Utah pilot project and surveys showing voters finding ranked‑choice systems easy to use. Elaine Stefan, testifying on her own behalf and identified as a co‑leader of Rank the Vote Kansas, described an “exhausted ballot” (a ballot that did not rank either of the final two candidates) and disputed claims that ranked systems discard ballots at higher rates once implemented; she also described national training and software resources available to election administrators.

Other testimony: Chris Saxman, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates, said the method had value in party nomination processes he observed in Virginia. Several senators asked questions about differences between runoffs and ranked choice, ballot exhaustion, software and recount complexity, home‑rule authority for municipalities and constitutional issues. Jason Long acknowledged past hearings on similar bills and said the current draft was “kind of a hybrid” of earlier models. Senator questions and committee discussion repeatedly distinguished ranked‑choice voting from traditional runoffs.

Outcome and next steps: The committee closed the hearing without taking a final vote on SB 6; the chair said the committee might “work” the bill at a subsequent meeting. Several senators and witnesses recommended further review of legal and administrative implications, including potential effects on municipal home‑rule authority and county election administration costs.

Votes at a glance: No formal committee vote was taken on Senate Bill 6 during this hearing. Earlier in the meeting clerical introductions noted other bills were introduced (RS 0602, RS 0585, 25RS0517), but no final actions on those items were recorded in the transcript.

Ending: The committee adjourned after closing the SB 6 hearing; members were told additional hearings and confirmation business were scheduled for the next days.