House committee hears six-hour debate over bill to let local governments adopt ranked-choice voting

Representative Mia Gregersen on Wednesday introduced House Bill 2,210 as an opt-in, six-year pilot that would permit counties, cities, towns, school districts, fire districts and ports to adopt ranked-choice voting (RCV) and change the nonpartisan primary from a top-two to a top-five winnowing system.

Gregersen said the measure responds to legal uncertainty from recent Supreme Court litigation she cited as "Louisiana v Calais" and framed RCV as a narrowly tailored ‘‘tool in the toolbox’’ for local jurisdictions that want alternatives to at-large or district systems. "This is not a mandate," she said, noting the bill contains an emergency clause and a sunset.

The committee heard sharply divided testimony. Proponents — including Nilu Jengs of FairVote Washington, Trevon Parrish of Washington Bus and Shannon Grimes of Sightline Institute — said RCV can reduce vote-splitting, expand meaningful choice in multi-candidate races and help communities of color, immigrants and young voters elect preferred candidates. "Democracy takes work, and that work is worth doing," a FairVote witness said in support.

But Secretary of State Steve Hobbs testified in opposition, telling the committee his experience led him to conclude RCV "disenfranchises and disadvantages people of color, those where English is not their first language, people with disabilities," and pointing to studies he said showed higher rejection and drop-off rates in jurisdictions using RCV. "The rejection rate in this state is not even 2%... On ranked choice voting, it's magnitude higher," Hobbs said, adding that implementation and voter education costs are substantial.

County election officials repeatedly raised operational concerns. Stevens County Auditor Lori Larson and Pierce County Auditor Linda Farmer told the committee their association had not taken a formal position because officials disagree, but both flagged major costs for software, ballot design, testing and voter education, and Farmer noted Pierce County’s earlier RCV experiment that voters later repealed.

Legal and academic testimony was mixed: Harvard-affiliated attorney Ruth Greenwood said proportional RCV can provide an alternative to district-based remedies in some Voting Rights Act-related cases and therefore could be a way to preserve representation without court-drawn racial districting, while other witnesses warned of complexity and auditability concerns.

Several municipal, business and auditor groups opposed the bill or urged substantial amendment, citing potential permitting or cost ripple effects and arguing that varied adoption across jurisdictions could produce inequality in how elections are run. Opponents also flagged questions over result verifiability and the transparency of tabulation algorithms.

The committee did not take a vote. Chair Charlotte Mena suspended and later closed the hearing to allow more witnesses to speak at a subsequent time; multiple members said they wanted more technical information on equipment costs, ballot-design standards and potential audit protocols before advancing the bill.

The committee will resume consideration at a later date; no committee action was recorded during this session.