State canvassers approve 100‑word summary for Rank My Vote ranked‑choice amendment

The Michigan Board of State Canvassers approved a 100‑word summary for a proposed constitutional amendment from the Rank My Vote ballot committee that would require ranked‑choice voting for certain offices beginning in 2029.

The board approved the summary after extended legal and public debate about which offices the amendment would affect, whether the change would move primaries in odd‑numbered years, and how to describe the tabulation process so voters understand how winners are determined.

The deputy director of elections and attorneys for Rank My Vote presented competing drafts and answered questions about whether the proposal "requires" ranking or merely permits it and whether the summary should say the change applies to "all primary elections." Proponents asked the board to preserve language making the amendment effective for federal offices, certain statewide offices and local jurisdictions that opt in; opponents and some board members warned about ambiguous phrasing that could leave implementation questions to courts or the Legislature.

Public commenters on both sides addressed how ranked‑choice voting works, including concerns about ‘‘inactive’’ or ‘‘exhausted’’ ballots and delays to final tabulations in jurisdictions that use RCV. Supporters argued the summary needed to be short and neutral; opponents asked for language that would explicitly note that tabulation rounds can exhaust ballots and delay results.

After multiple redrafts and line‑by‑line discussion, the board read a final 100‑word statement aloud and voted to approve the summary and the petition form (the board later adopted a separate motion approving the petition form conditioned on replacing the summary language with the version the board approved). The vote on the summary was recorded as unanimous.

The board also took procedural public comment about whether a deputy director can act for an absent director when the statute uses the phrase "director of elections," with some commenters saying that question could be litigated. The board proceeded with its duties while noting the legal objection in the record.

What the board approved: the summary, as read into the record, explains that ranked‑choice voting (RCV) would be required for specified high‑level offices beginning in 2029; would let voters numerically rank candidates; would determine winners by counting votes in rounds that eliminate the lowest‑ranked candidate and reallocate remaining ranked choices until a candidate has the most final‑round votes; would allow local jurisdictions to adopt RCV; and would move the August primary to June or earlier in even‑numbered years. The board also approved conditional acceptance of the petition form.

The petition now proceeds under the normal signature‑gathering and certification timeline; the summary approved by the board is the version that must be printed on petition circulator forms and shared with potential signers.

The board’s discussion and public comments make clear that implementation questions — including how straight‑party voting will interact with RCV and how state law must change to operationalize the amendment — would be decided later by the Legislature or, if ambiguous, by the courts.

Votes and next steps: The board approved the summary and accepted the petition form (with the conditioned replacement of the summary language) and the petition sponsor may circulate the petition under the summary the board approved.