Committee reviews multiple election‑law proposals including ranked‑choice voting, fusion voting, top‑two primary, automatic voter registration and corrections‑v

The House Committee on State Government and Elections spent March 25, 2025, reviewing a slate of election‑law proposals ranging from ranked‑choice voting to fusion voting and administrative measures intended to expand voter access.

Ranked‑choice voting: Representatives and civic groups pressed for trial uses. Representative Kislak presented two bills (H 5275 and H 5276). H 5275 would apply ranked‑choice voting (RCV) to party primary elections for the General Assembly, while H 5276 would allow a single‑election pilot using RCV for the presidential preference primary. Rachel Hutchinson of FairVote told the committee that the presidential primary is an especially good initial use because it is a single, focused contest and “ranked choice voting also reduces pressure on candidates to drop out because less popular candidates aren't told that they're splitting or siphoning votes.” Witnesses representing Ocean State Ranked Choice Voting, Common Cause, and local residents described studies and experience from other jurisdictions showing high voter comprehension and minimal ballot spoilage; several speakers urged enactment now so there would be time to educate voters before 2028.

Implementation and administrative concerns surfaced repeatedly. Rob Rock of the Secretary of State’s office said the board of elections should certify RCV results and recommended that the office be involved in any voter education effort; he also asked to work with sponsors on technical language, including write‑in handling in primaries to avoid cross‑party distortions. Representative Newberry and others raised questions about voter confusion and whether voters would complete ranked ballots correctly; experts cited exit‑poll and tabulation data showing valid ballot rates comparable to traditional elections and recommended limited, well‑publicized ranking limits (for example, up to five choices for a presidential primary).

Fusion voting and ballot access: Representative Edwards introduced H 5712 to permit fusion voting (allowing candidates to appear as the nominee of multiple parties). Proponents said fusion voting can help smaller parties and independents show organized support and cited historic and contemporary examples (New York’s Working Families Party and the Conservative Party) where fusion votes altered outcomes. Libertarian and Working Families Party witnesses urged broader reforms to party formation and ballot‑access rules so third parties could compete meaningfully.

Primary runoff/top‑two proposal: Representative placed H 5277 before the committee as a separate option. That bill would run an all‑candidates primary with the top two moving to the general election; sponsors said it would prevent election of statewide offices by mere plurality. Secretary of State staff said the bill would require comprehensive updates to Title 17 (election code) if enacted.

Voter access measures: Representative Fasho proposed automatic voter registration for Rhode Islanders who obtain hunting or fishing licenses; the Secretary of State’s office and Common Cause supported the idea and noted the state's existing automatic registration through the DMV is a model to replicate. Representative Cruz introduced a bill to create a voter coordinator position inside the Department of Corrections to ensure incarcerated but eligible people can register and receive ballots; the Secretary of State and Common Cause supported codifying procedures the DOC has piloted to make it durable across leadership changes.

Other measures: Representative Bennett introduced a joint resolution to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would lengthen legislative terms to four years. Representative Place introduced a resolution to submit a state constitutional amendment to grant the governor a line‑item veto; Common Cause testified it supports sending the question to voters and noted there are many state variants of line‑item veto powers.

Procedural note: the committee recorded a motion at the start of the hearing to hold all bills for further study; members recorded that motion as passed.

What’s next: Committee members and administration staff agreed on the need for technical drafting work, cross‑agency coordination on implementation, and public education plans for any change. Sponsors and administration staff said they would return with tightened language and cost/administrative analyses. No bill received a final committee recommendation on March 25.

Ending: The hearing reflected broad interest in election reform across the political spectrum and a shared emphasis on careful administrative design and voter education before changes are adopted.