Annapolis public hearing on ranked‑choice voting draws broad civic debate

The Annapolis City Council heard extensive testimony for and against ordinance O35‑25, a proposal to use ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in city elections.

Supporters included local civic groups and voting‑rights advocates who said RCV reduces the “spoiler” effect, encourages broader candidate fields, and can increase participation and civility in campaigns. “Ranked choice voting or RCV empowers voters to better express their preferences at the ballot box by eliminating the need for strategic voting,” said Morgan Drayton of Common Cause Maryland. Voter‑education advocates and local League chapters urged a public education program if RCV is adopted; Morgan Drayton and others recommended voter education as part of implementation.

A coalition of local advocates and organizations testified in favor of the ordinance, and multiple speakers cited experience from other jurisdictions. “Voters across the U.S. are tired of toxic campaigns,” said Zoe Bridal (transcript name Zoe Bridal), arguing RCV incentivizes candidates to seek second‑choice support and campaign more civilly. Proponents pointed to studies and jurisdictions reporting high voter satisfaction after implementation.

Opponents voiced concerns about ballot exhaustion, complexity, potential litigation and cost. “RCV is confusing and designed to be that way,” said Susan Duffy, who cited recent state‑level litigation and called for caution. Several speakers and members of the public asked the council to consider other reforms, including nonpartisan or open primaries. Ron Gunsberger suggested a nonpartisan “jungle” primary as an alternative.

Council members asked procedural questions from the dais during the hearing. Several speakers emphasized that voters would not be required to rank every candidate and that jurisdictions using RCV typically release cast‑vote records to support audits and transparency.

Council action at the meeting: the council closed the public hearing on O35‑25; no final vote was recorded at the meeting. Speakers and groups on both sides asked the council to proceed with public education, transparent implementation planning, or to slow the process and consider alternatives.

What’s next: The council will consider the ordinance and any committee referrals or implementation details in subsequent meetings; supporters urged a robust voter education campaign if the council advances the change.