Kansas Senate panel hears bill to ban ranked-choice voting

A Kansas Senate committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 6, a proposal that would bar any form of ranked‑choice voting — sometimes called instant‑runoff or preference voting — from use in federal, state, county or municipal elections in Kansas.

Supporters told the committee that ranked‑choice voting is complex, risks ballot exhaustion and can produce outcomes they described as manufactured majorities. Opponents and neutral witnesses said Kansas law already requires plurality voting and questioned whether a statewide ban is needed; some municipal and party officials said allowing local use could reduce vote‑splitting and primary costs.

The bill and why it matters

Senate Bill 6, as described by a reviser from the Revised Statutes Office, would prohibit “any form of rank choice voting method” for elections or nominations to federal, state, county or municipal elected office and would void any ordinance or resolution implementing such a system. The reviser noted the statutory language leaves no exception for local elections.

Proponents argued the measure would protect what they described as straightforward, majority‑based plurality elections. Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project ACTION, told the committee that ranked‑choice voting “undermines the traditional one‑person, one‑vote way of running an election” and called the method “incredibly complex.” Snead said RCV can “manufacture a majority” and cited studies and recent ballot experiences in other jurisdictions to question RCV’s claims to increase turnout, reduce polarization or produce more civil campaigning. “New York City spent $15,000,000 teaching people how to cast a ballot in their first RCV election,” Snead said, and he warned that longer ballots and longer per‑race voting times could increase lines and voter fatigue.

Madeline Melissa, a visiting fellow with Opportunity Solutions Project who said she lives in Portland, Maine, described local RCV experience there as “a disaster” and recounted races in which she said many ballots were not carried forward in later rounds because voters marked only a first choice. “There were 8,000 ballots that were eliminated from the race” in one Maine congressional contest, she said, and she recounted tabulation delays in New York City and Alameda County that she said followed software or procedural errors during RCV counts.

Neutral and technical testimony

Clay Barker, general counsel to the Kansas secretary of state, testified as a neutral witness and explained existing Kansas law. Barker said Kansas statutes mandate plurality voting: he cited KSA 25‑702, which he summarized as requiring one vote per office with the person receiving the most votes declared the winner. Barker told the committee that counties are not allowed to exempt themselves from state election law and that, to his knowledge, no Kansas county or city has tried to implement ranked‑choice voting. He said the bill “is not redundant” because it would reduce the risk of novel judicial interpretation and would prevent municipalities from attempting to use home‑rule authority to adopt RCV in ways the legislature had not authorized.

Opponents and local proponents

Speakers opposing the ban said RCV can be a useful election tool when applied thoughtfully. Chris Saxman, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates, described how the Republican Party of Virginia used ranked‑choice structures in intra‑party nomination processes and argued it reduced damaging intra‑party attacks and allowed more civil campaigning among many candidates. “It’s just one of those tools in the toolbox,” Saxman said, urging caution about a blanket prohibition.

Elaine Stephen, co‑founder of Rank the Vote Kansas, said the group’s membership is Kansans and described their interest as keeping the conversation open rather than immediate implementation. She disputed claims that reported tabulation errors in Oakland and New York City were inherent to RCV, saying they were procedural mistakes (incorrect system settings or test ballots left in place) that could occur under plurality systems as well. Stephen also cited historical international use of preference voting in countries such as Australia and Ireland and said Alaska’s courts have found aspects of RCV consistent with one‑person, one‑vote principles.

Andrew Booze (testifying on his own behalf but affiliated with Rank the Vote Kansas) and Richard Pond, an Overland Park resident who opposes the ban, made similar points: RCV can combine primary and general decisions into a single election for local races, potentially lowering municipal costs and preserving voter preferences that otherwise are discarded when a voter’s preferred candidate loses a primary.

What witnesses disagreed about

Testimony diverged on four main points: whether RCV inherently produces illegitimate majorities; whether reported errors in RCV jurisdictions are inherent to the method or attributable to software/procedural mistakes; whether Kansas law already forbids RCV; and whether a state ban would prevent municipal innovation or protect statewide uniformity.

- Legality: Clay Barker (Secretary of State counsel) said KSA 25‑702 establishes plurality voting statewide and counties cannot exempt themselves; he nevertheless supported the bill’s clarity to reduce legal uncertainty. Richard Pond cited a 2017 legislative special committee that he said concluded home‑rule governments could adopt RCV; Pond said the committee then took no action. The committee did not vote on statutory questions at the hearing.

- Complexity and voter education: Proponents cited studies and local examples to argue RCV increases ballot‑marking and counting complexity and can require extensive voter education. Opponents and local RCV advocates pointed to pilot studies (for example, a Utah municipal pilot) showing high voter ease after initial exposure and said clear ballot design and implementation can mitigate many issues.

- Ballot exhaustion and discarded ballots: Proponents described contests where many ballots did not carry to final rounds because voters had not ranked additional candidates; opponents said exhausted ballots are analogous to voters who skip a later election under the existing system and that jurisdictions choose ranking limits for practical reasons.

Formal actions and next steps

The committee conducted a hearing on Senate Bill 6 but did not take a formal vote on the measure. Committee leadership closed testimony after hearing proponent, neutral and opponent witnesses and directed members to written testimony filed for the record. The chair said the committee will not meet Tuesday, and that it will hear Senate Bill 105 on Thursday (a scheduling change announced at the end of the session).

Ending

The committee took no action on SB 6 at the hearing; members signaled continued interest in evidence on implementation, legal clarity and municipal authority. Written testimony from additional proponents and opponents was entered into the record, and the committee left the bill pending further consideration.

Quotes used in this story are taken from official committee testimony and public testimony recorded during the hearing.