Now that Gov. Mike DeWine has signed into law a ban on Ohio cities that might be considering using ranked choice voting, backers of that method are considering their next move.
Senate Bill 63 will prevent cities from allowing voters to sort multiple candidates in a race in order of preference, rather than a vote for one person. And under the new law, if a city does adopt that policy, it would lose state funding
Rank the Vote Ohio Executive Director Denise Riley said she thinks she knows why lawmakers opposed the voting procedure.
"They are used to doing things the way they are used to doing things, and they don’t want to change how they do things," Riley said in an interview. "By having to appeal to a majority of voters instead of the few people who vote for them in the primary, they would have to work harder to get people to vote, and that scares them."
Riley said one thing is clear; there won’t be a statewide amendment or repeal effort to get it any time soon.
"Running a ballot initiative in the state of Ohio is exceedingly expensive—like $40 million expensive. And we are mostly a grass-roots organization," Riley said. "So building that kind of momentum for something that a lot of people haven’t heard about is difficult at best.”
Riley said her group believes charter cities have the right to use ranked choice voting by issuing a charter amendment and could put it on their ballot – something that could happen as early as November. She said her organization has been working with Lakewood and Cleveland Heights on that process. But the new law said state funding can be withheld from cities that use ranked choice voting in any way.
The Ohio Municipal League issued a statement after DeWine signed the bill, saying it has had concerns throughout the legislative process about using financial penalties as a threat to communities that might consider ranked choice voting.
"Cities and villages rely on Local Government Fund revenue to support essential services such as police and fire protection, infrastructure, economic development, and other critical community needs. Those funds should not be used as leverage to influence local policy decisions," the statement reads in part. “The best decisions about local governance should be made at the local level – by the communities and leaders closest to the people they serve. Establishing a precedent where state funding can be cut off when local officials make decisions that state officeholders may not agree with is concerning and undermines that principle."
Supporters of the ban on ranked choice voting said it's confusing, it doesn't lead to less partisanship or extremism, and violates the principle of "one person, one vote". A similar bill had been proposed in 2023, but died at the end of the last two-year session.
