TOPEKA — Registered Republican Nichola Simpson made an argument Thursday aimed at convincing the Kansas Legislature to deflect an attempt to amplify the illegality of cities, counties or the state initiating any form of ranked-choice voting in elections to public functions.
Simpson, of Lawrence, insisted that opposition to a Kansas Senate bill banning this alternative approach to voting was not based on partisan ideology. Simpson indicated openness to ranked-choice voting, or RCV, possibilities, respecting the angst felt by Kansas Republicans frustrated by Gov. Laura Kelly’s back-to-back victories despite the Democrat’s failure to secure a majority of the votes cast.
“I agree that our voting system in Kansas should represent the majority of Kansans, and that’s why I think banning ranked-choice voting is not the best option at this time,” Simpson said . “RCV leads to stronger candidates and prevents spoiler candidates from swinging the election into Democratic hands.”
Benee Hudson, an Overland Park resident and Republican precinct committee member, said skeptics of Senate Bill 368 are wrong. She said legislation introduced by Wichita Republican Sen. Chase Blasi would protect voters from being disenfranchised by a system in which voters rank two or more candidates in order of preference.
“RCV leads to lower voter turnout and low voter confidence,” she said. “It is a confusing process and I fear that some segments of our population may choose not to vote. Valid candidates could be excluded from elections and corruption would become inevitable.”
Hudson said the potential damage to the electoral process was significant enough to warrant language in the bill declaring null and void any order, resolution or regulation authorizing ranked-choice voting adopted before July 1, 2024. The proposed ban in the Statewide ranked-choice voting would be implemented at that time.
Ranked-choice voting was designed to avoid the election of someone who received less than half of the votes. The concept has gained traction as a way to avoid runoff elections and achieve a majority winner.
On election night, the ranked-choice approach would become an important piece of the puzzle if no candidate achieves a majority in the initial vote count. The candidate with the fewest votes would then be evicted and that candidate’s supporters would have their second-choice votes reallocated. If necessary, the cycle would be repeated until a consensus winner crossed the 50% finish line.
Individuals and special interest organizations touting a ban on ranked-choice voting at a Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee hearing have American precedent and Kansas history on their side.
In the United States, two states – Maine and Alaska – and around fifty municipalities use preferential voting. Several states, however, authorize preferential voting for military and foreign voters in anticipation of a possible second round of elections.
Clay Barker, deputy secretary of state and attorney in Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s office, said the state ordered in 1861 that elections be conducted using the majority-vote methodology so that “all elections for the choice of any officer” be the norm.
“That is, one vote per position and the candidate with the most votes wins,” Barker said. “The law therefore prohibits the use of ranked choice voting in Kansas.”
Barker said no entity in Kansas running elections for public office has used ranked-choice voting. Schwab, a Republican, did not view the ban built into Senate Bill 368 as redundant because it would serve to further strengthen elections from new interpretations of state law, Barker said.
Barker said the bill could have a chilling effect on local governments seeking to adopt ranked-choice voting through an aggressive expansion of local self-government authority enshrined in the Kansas Constitution.
“After 163 years, the people of Kansas are accustomed to majority voting and without strong popular advocacy or public demand, policymakers should be reluctant to pursue such a fundamental change in voting procedures,” Barker said.
He said implementing RCV would require costly changes to voting infrastructure, including changes to machines, ballots and tabulation systems. He said the state should change post-election audits and bear the cost of educating potential voters about the change.
