Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ranked Choice Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony for and against Ohio bill to ban ranked‑choice voting; opponents cite home rule
Summary
Dozens of witnesses testified for and against SB 63, which would ban ranked‑choice voting in much of Ohio and withhold state funds from municipalities that adopt it; proponents said RCV is confusing and costly, while opponents argued it is a proven method that supports local experimentation and warned the bill undermines municipal home rule.
The House General Government Committee heard extensive third‑hearing testimony on Senate Bill 63, a proposal that would prohibit ranked‑choice voting in many circumstances and create fiscal disincentives for municipalities that adopt it.
Proponents: Chad Enos, vice president of Honest Elections Project ACTION, argued in proponent testimony that ranked‑choice voting (RCV) ‘‘makes every stage of the election more confusing and inconvenient,’’ that it can lengthen voting time and add administrative complexity, and that the system has produced notable errors in some jurisdictions. Enos cited the cost of voter education in New York and said some studies do not show benefits to turnout or polarization.
Opponents: A long line of opponent witnesses — including Mia Lewis of Common Cause Ohio, Denise Riley of Rank the Vote Ohio, municipal officials, former statewide officials and dozens of residents — disputed those claims. Common Cause’s Mia Lewis said Ohio’s voting equipment has been updated and is programmable for RCV and urged the committee to allow local experimentation. Witnesses cited Maine, Alaska and U.S. municipalities as working examples, argued RCV can increase voter choice and reduce negative campaigning, and warned SB 63 would violate municipal home rule by withholding distributions and coercing local governments.
Legal and administrative questions dominated the hearing. Opponents repeatedly characterized the bill’s funding penalty as a coercive ‘‘end around’’ that would undermine the constitutional home‑rule power municipalities exercise. Proponents countered that differences in voting methods across municipalities could create compatibility and training challenges for county‑level election administrators.
The committee heard examples and data points from both sides — claims that 17 states have passed bans versus witnesses who said the bans apply to states that had not used RCV, studies about ballot exhaustion and turnout, and differing assessments of equipment capability and cost. No final vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing and adjourned for the evening.
