Subcommittee holds hearing on bill to ban ranked‑choice voting in Georgia; witnesses split on runoffs, turnout and military carve‑out

A Governmental Affairs subcommittee held a hearing on legislation that would ban ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in Georgia except for a limited carve‑out for uniformed and overseas voters. The hearing produced extended debate between the bill’s sponsor and a broad set of witnesses who emphasized differing priorities: voter clarity and uniform statewide rules versus reducing runoff costs and offering local pilot options.

Senator Robertson, the bill’s sponsor, told the panel the measure “outlaws rank choice voting in Georgia” and argued RCV has produced confusion in other jurisdictions. Robertson described concerns ranging from ballots with many choices to delayed results in some places and said the bill is “a very simple bill.” He indicated he would accept a friendly amendment to preserve RCV access for military and overseas voters in limited circumstances.

Supporters of the bill — including some testimony from voters and advocates — raised concerns about ballot complexity and transparency. Tamara Favorito of VoterGA told the committee RCV ballots can be “extremely complicated” and said federal write‑in ballots could be used for overseas voters instead of RCV. Garland Favarito and others described episodes they said showed RCV ballots would be difficult for some populations and argued the legislature should preemptively ban the method.

Opponents — including local activists, election‑reform groups and nonpartisan experts — said RCV can address the runoffs problem and reduce the cost and turnout drop associated with runoffs. Several witnesses representing Georgia‑based volunteer groups and national organizations explained how RCV has been used in municipalities and states to eliminate low‑turnout runoffs and to change campaign incentives. Testimony included: - Scott Turner (Eternal Vigilance Action) and Ben Rowley (Better Ballot Georgia) cited local runoff turnout drops and local budget costs, saying RCV would reduce repeated elections that attract far fewer voters. Turner submitted a list of runoff turnout figures that showed large drop‑offs in municipal runoffs. - Chris Saxman and Chris Hughes described experiences in other states where RCV was used to avoid bruising intra‑party contests and to limit turnout erosion between rounds; Saxman cited Virginia Republican party use where ranked balloting influenced candidate behavior and campaign civility. - Deb Otis (FairVote) and Chris Hughes (The Resource Center) addressed isolated implementation errors in other jurisdictions, saying some issues were human or machine errors not inherently caused by RCV and that strong post‑election audits and administration can mitigate risks.

Multiple speakers pressed for local flexibility: several municipal representatives and citizens said cities and counties that want to pilot RCV for local, nonpartisan contests should be allowed to do so. Better Ballot Georgia said jurisdictions representing roughly 15% of the state population have passed resolutions requesting permission to try RCV locally.

The bill’s military/overseas carve‑out drew sustained attention. Senator Robertson and other members acknowledged the unique timing and logistics faced by deployed service members; several veterans who testified said they had successfully used RCV ballots while deployed. Opponents and the League of Women Voters asked for voter education or pilot programs rather than a statewide ban. Garland Favarito and others argued federal options like the UOCAVA write‑in ballot could address equal‑protection concerns for overseas voters without requiring RCV.

A motion by the chair to limit public comment time to one minute failed for lack of a second. The subcommittee did not take final action on the underlying bill during the hearing; the chair described the day as “a hearing only” and said the committee would hear additional testimony at a future date if needed.

The hearing illustrated a divide between members and stakeholders over priorities: some committee members and witnesses emphasized ballot clarity and uniform statewide rules, while others prioritized reducing local election costs and preserving local options. The committee concluded the session without a vote on the measure.