The Ohio House of Representatives passes bill that bans ranked choice voting

A bill state lawmakers passed could ban ranked-choice voting, a method that allows voters to rank candidates in their order of preference, but critics argue that elections’ outcomes don’t always reflect the will of the voters.

Senate Bill 63 would prohibit the use of RCV and withhold Local Government Fund distributions from any municipality or chartered county that uses it. The House passed the legislation after adding amendments to specify that the petitions that political candidates file with their candidacy paperwork are public records.

While supporters of RCV say that it gives voters more choices and encourages a broader range of candidates to run, opponents say it confuses voters and complicates vote counting.

Kenneth Blackwell testified on behalf of the America First Policy Institute, where he serves as the chair of the Center for Election Integrity, as a proponent of the bill.

“RCV is a chaotic and confusing system of running elections which often results in the candidate with the most first-round votes losing the election,” Blackwell told members of the Ohio Senate General Government Committee in prepared testimony. “It also often results in the complete discarding of ballots, an increase in public confusion, and additional work for election workers.”

“Unlike typical ‘one person, one vote’ systems, RCV requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference, with votes redistributed in rounds until a majority emerges. This process can easily overwhelm voters, especially in races with many candidates.”

Jason Snead, the executive director of Honest Elections Project Action, also testified in support of the bill.

“RCV is corrosive to public trust in elections,” Snead said in prepared testimony. “Consider how a ranked-choice election works. No matter how it is branded — ‘Final Five,’ ‘Instant-runoff,’ proportional representation, etc.—RCV is a scheme aimed at ending the American tradition of ‘one person, one vote.’”

Snead said that RCV has led to voter confusion, tabulation errors, and eliminated ballots in states and cities where it has been implemented, while also failing to decrease political polarization.

“Americans want elections with clear rules that deliver clear winners,” Snead said. “RCV offers neither.”

H. Lee Crumine, the chair of Rank University Heights, a ballot issue committee that supports ranked choice voting in the Cleveland suburb, testified as an opponent of the bill.

“RCV limits the problems of vote-splitting, spoiler candidates, wasted votes, and strategic voting,” Crumine said in prepared testimony. “Many voters are often faced with the dilemma of holding their noses and voting for an acceptable candidate who seems more electable rather than the candidate whom they truly prefer.”

Crumine said that RCV was previously used in the cities of Ashtabula, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo between 1915 and 1960. The ballot committee chair also said that the suburb is seeking to implement RCV to allow voters to elect candidates who are representative of the community.

Deb Otis, the director of policy and Research at FairVote Action, also testified as an opponent of the bill.

“RCV has had a valuable impact in the cities, counties, and states where it has been used, ensuring elections are fairer and delivering outcomes that are more representative of the will of the voters,” Otis said in prepared testimony. “Further, RCV has: (1) helped parties nominate more viable candidates who bring their party together; (2) offered voters more choices on their ballots; and (3) promoted more positive, issues-focused campaigns.”

Ohio does not currently use RCV in state or local elections. There is a current ballot initiative to implement RCV in University Heights.

In Cincinnati, ballot measures to adopt RCV appeared in 2008, 1991, and 1988. All three were defeated, according to Ballotpedia.

The legislation was passed by the state Senate and introduced in the House in May 2025. The bill will now go back to the Senate for a vote on the version passed by the House, and then to Gov. Mike DeWine for signing if passed.