Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple proponents urge ban on ranked-choice voting, citing complexity and delayed results
Summary
Proponents of Senate Bill 63 told the committee RCV is confusing, can delay final results and risk ballot exhaustion; witnesses cited numerous recent state actions banning RCV and urged the legislature to codify a ban for Ohio.
Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project ACTION, told the committee that Senate Bill 63 is needed to ban ranked-choice voting in Ohio, describing RCV as a complex scheme that can confuse voters and delay results.
"Ranked choice voting has no place in American elections," Snead said, arguing RCV requires centralized tabulation, new third-party software and extensive voter education. He cited examples in other states and localities, including delayed or contested outcomes.
Bo Uchen of FGA Action and Laura Currant (Curran) of Heritage Action echoed those concerns, saying RCV is prone to errors, risks discarding ballots in some tabulation schemes, and has led some jurisdictions to abandon pilots. Witnesses cited examples from Maine, New York City, Alaska and other jurisdictions to illustrate risks and delays.
Committee members questioned witness claims about voter education costs, whether RCV eliminates runoffs, and the effect of ballot exhaustion. Witnesses responded that education and equipment costs can be substantial and that RCV can increase ballot-completion time and lines at polls.
The second hearing concluded after proponent testimony and committee questions; members were provided submitted written testimony for further review.
