House election committee hears testimony warning ranked‑choice voting could complicate Michigan elections

The Michigan House Committee on Election Integrity on Oct. 26 heard testimony from Jason Snead and Trent England of the Honest Elections Project raising procedural and equity concerns about ranked‑choice voting (RCV) and how a proposed Michigan ballot measure would interact with the state's election systems.

Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told the committee RCV “really does fundamentally jeopardize free and fair elections, particularly when it comes to voter confidence in the election system and to the transparency and accountability that voters expect.” He explained the mechanics of ranking multiple candidates and described ballot exhaustion — when a voter’s ranked choices are all eliminated and that ballot is removed from later rounds of tabulation.

The witnesses framed their testimony around several recurring themes: administration complexity, delayed results, recount and audit difficulty, increased costs for voter education and equipment, and disparate impacts on some voter groups. "It is extraordinarily difficult to administer a ranked choice election," Trent England said, describing additional central tabulation requirements and recount challenges for large, statewide contests.

Committee members were shown examples and data points during testimony. Snead and England cited that two states — Maine and Alaska — currently use RCV for some contests, that "over the last 3 years, we have seen 17 states ban ranked choice voting," and that six states rejected RCV ballot measures last November. They pointed to specific incidents and studies: New York City’s multi‑week tabulation schedule after adopting RCV, a 2022 Oakland school board tabulation error in which 235 ballots were handled incorrectly in a contest with about 26,000 ballots, a cited $15 million voter education program New York City ran in 2021, and academic studies (including MIT and other university research referenced by witnesses) they said show neutral or negative effects on turnout and no consistent increase in moderation among winners.

Witnesses raised several technical and procedural concerns the committee discussed: when RCV is used statewide, ballots or vote totals from many jurisdictions must be centralized before the rounds of elimination can be run; different voting‑system vendors use proprietary reporting formats; design decisions (for example, how to treat a ballot that omits a first‑choice but lists a second‑choice) require new rules that can change outcomes; post‑election audits and risk‑limiting audit designs become more complex because the order of elimination matters; and hand recounts for millions of ballots lack documented precedent in RCV systems at scale.

Members asked how RCV would interact with Michigan’s straight‑ticket voting option and with no‑excuse absentee and early voting. Committee members also asked whether RCV reliably delivers more moderate candidates. The witnesses said results depend on the candidate mix and local conditions; they argued that RCV can be used for political advantage and pointed to Alaska and Maine as examples where political calculations influenced adoption. Representative Kolazar said she hoped the committee would also hear testimony from RCV supporters to present a fuller record.

The committee took one formal action at the start of the hearing: Representative Hoadley moved to adopt the minutes from the June 3 meeting; there was no objection and the motion prevailed by unanimous consent. No further votes on ranked‑choice voting or ballot language were taken during this hearing.

Committee members repeatedly requested additional information and said they wanted testimony from proponents of RCV before making policy recommendations. The hearing record shows the committee discussed multiple technical and legal questions that, according to the witnesses, would require substantial rulemaking or legislation to resolve before implementing RCV at a statewide scale in Michigan.

(For context: witnesses named examples of jurisdictions that have used or tested RCV — Maine, Alaska, New York City, Oakland, Arlington County, parts of Utah and Pierce County, Washington — and cited academic studies and local experiences during their remarks.)