Ranked Choice Voting

Proposed reforms in 2023

What is Ranked Choice Voting?

Ranked choice voting (RCV) is a voting method that allows voters to rank candidates. Each voter’s ballot counts as a vote for its highest-ranked candidate, and if no candidate has enough votes to win then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated the votes are counted again, with votes for the eliminated candidate counting the voters’ next choice. When used to elect a single person (a method that’s also known as “instand run-off voting”), RCV can elect the candidate who has majority support without requiring a separate runoff election. Other versions of RCV can elect multiple candidates, and it can be used as a form of proportional representation (see the Proportional Represenation section). Ranked choice voting has been used in American elections for over a century, mostly at the local level, and is used in national elections in countries like Australia and Ireland.2

Overall, 2023 was a momentous year for RCV. Most state legislatures saw at least one bill or resolution about it.

Why are we tracking it?

Ranked choice voting is currently one of the structural reform ideas with the most interest. Recent high profile adoptions in Maine (2016), New York City (2019), and Alaska (2020) have shone a national spotlight on the reform and every year brings new adoptions, from elections for local office to presidential elections.3 Reformers are drawn to RCV for many reasons, including its potential to eliminate costly, low-turnout runoff elections, address the “spoiler effect” and lesser-of-two-evils problems endemic to plurality winner elections, elect consensus candidates with broad support, and disincentivize negative campaigning.4

Fast stats:

Total proposals:

108

Total states and territories:

38

States with the most bills:

MA (11), TX (9)

Total proposals passed:

11

Proposals passing only one chamber:

4

Proposals that passed and were vetoed: 

2

Bipartisan proposals and committee bills: 

16

Additional Analysis

Ranked choice voting is, by far, the policy area we tracked with the most legislative activity. Legislators introduced 108 bills or resolutions related to RCV in 37 states and one US territory. Advocates can brag that in the 2023 legislative session, ranked choice voting legislation was considered in 74% of states.

The most common kinds of RCV legislation would allow local elections to use RCV, followed by those that would bring RCV to presidential primary elections. Both of these are familiar territory for RCV. The most frequent use of RCV in the United States is at the local level6 and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary featured RCV in four states.7 Interest in using RCV in these contexts was also evident in the successful RCV proposals. Of the six pieces of pro-RCV legislation that become law, three relate to local elections (CA’s AB 1227, CT’s HB 6941, and VT’s H 508), one creates a task force to explore the possibility of using RCV in presidential primaries (IL’s SB 2123), and one will adopt RCV for presidential primary elections (among others) if approved by the voters in 2024 (OR’s HB 2004).

Not all of this year’s legislation was positive for RCV. Ten proposals were bills that would repeal the current use of RCV or ban future use. Five of those proposals were passed by state legislatures, although two of those were vetoed. On one hand, this is another sign that RCV’s moment has arrived. Legislators rarely ban a practice unless they take its threat (or promise, depending on your perspective) seriously. On the other hand, these bans create new legal obstacles for advocates in those states and indicate a new level of nationally-coordinated opposition to RCV.

  • ➤ RCV by the numbers:

    • 77 proposals were introduced by Democrats, 14 were introduced by Republicans, 11 had bi- or multipartisan sponsorship, 5 were committee bills, and 1 was introduced by a third party (Puerto Rico’s Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana). 
      • Of the 16 bi- or multipartisan and committee bills, 4 would apply to local elections, 1 would apply to presidential primaries, 6 would apply to a combination of local, state, and federal elections, and 1 would ban the use of RCV.
        • Only 1 of those bills passed as of the time of publication (ID’s H 179). It was also the only of those bills that is hostile to RCV, banning its use in any election in the state.
        • Bipartisan, multipartisan, and committee bills were introduced in 13 states (CT, CO, GA, IA, ID, KS, MA, NH, OR, SC, VT, WI, WY).
          • 6 of these states are Republican trifectas, 4 of these states are Democratic trifectas, and, and 3 are in states with divided governments.
      • Of the 14 Republican bills, 3 would repeal the use of RCV, 6 would ban the use of RCV in future, 2 would adopt RCV for presidential primary elections, 1 would adopt it for state offices, 1 would expand the types of offices that can be elected with RCV, and 1 would adopt a form of RCV for regular primary elections.
        • The 9 bills to ban or repeal RCV were introduced in 7 states (AK, AZ, ME, MT, ND, SD, TX).
        • The 5 bills to adopt or expand the use of RCV were introduced in 2 states (KY, UT, VA).
      • The single proposal that was introduced by a third party was a study bill that was introduced in Puerto Rico. 
    • Of the 11 proposals that were passed by legislatures:
      • 5 ban the use of RCV.
        • 4 bans were introduced by Republicans and 1 was a committee bill from a Republican controlled legislative committee (ID’s H 179).
        • 4 of the bans were passed in Repbulican trifectas (ID, MT, ND, SD) and 1 was passed in a divided state with a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor (AZ). 
        • 2 of these bans (AZ’s HB 2552 and ND’s HB 1273) were vetoed by the governor. Arizona’s governor is a Democrat and North Dakota’s governor is a Republican.5
        • None of the 5 states used RCV in any elections at the time of the ban.
      • 3 authorize the use of RCV in certain local elections.
        • All were introduced by Democrats, 2 were in states that are Democratic trifectas (CA and CT) and one in a divided state with a Democratic legislature and Republican governor (VT).
        • 2 authorize a specific jurisdiction in the state to use RCV (CA’s AB 1227 authorizes its use in Santa Clara County and VT’s H 508 does so for Burlington).
        • 1 is a state voting rights act, which allows proportional RCV to be used as a remedy to address vote dilution in local elections (CT’s HB 6941).
      • 1 refers refers a question to the 2024 general election ballot asking voters if they want to adopt RCV for various elections, including statewide and congressional office and presidential elections (OR’s HB 2004).
      • 2 creates a task force to study the possibility of using RCV in future elections (IL’s SB 2123 and MN’s HF 1830).
    • 4 proposals made it through single chamber of a legislature but not all the way through.
      • 1 was to adopt RCV for presidential primaries (VT’s S.32)
      • 1 would amend the state constitution to expand RCV to general elections for governor and state legislatures (ME’s LD 1917)
      • 1 would authorize courts to use proportional RCV to address voting rights violations in local governments (CT’s SB 1226). That proposal was eventually combined with a state budget bill and became law that way (CT’s AB 1227)
      • 1 would ban the use of RCV (TX’s SB 921)
    • 38 proposals would allow RCV in local elections.
      • 3 passed and 1 passed a single chamber.
      • 30 were introduced by Democrats, 6 had bipartisan sponsorship or were committee bills, and was introduced by a Republican.
      • 24 would give local governments the ability to adopt RCV for certain kinds of local elections.
      • 9 authorize a specific local government to adopt RCV.
      • 4 are state voting rights acts that would allow courts to use proportional RCV as a remedy to correct voting rights violations in local elections. (See the section on State Voting Rights Acts).
    • 22 proposals would adopt RCV for presidential primary elections.
      • 17 were introduced by Democrats, 2 were introduced by Republicans, and 3 had bipartisan sponsorship.
      • 1 passed (OR’s HB 2004, which referred a ballot question to voters about adopting RCV for several state and federal races, including presidential primaries).
    • 31 proposals would adopt RCV for some combination of local, state, and federal elections.
    • 4 proposals were to use RCV in special elections to fill vacancies.
    • 7 proposals were study bills, that would create task forces to explore the possibility of adopting RCV.
      • 2 passed (MN’s HF 1830 and IL’s SB 2123).
      • 1 was the only proposal introduced in a US territory and the only proposal introduced by legislators affiliated with a party other than Democratic and Republican parties (Puerto Rico’s RC0831). 
    • 2 proposals would adopt RCV for state or federal primary elections.
      • 1 of which (UT’s HB 205) passed one chamber of the state legislature.
    • 7 proposals would ban the use of RCV.
      • 5 were passed by state legislatures, 2 of which were vetoed by governors.
      • 6 were introduced by Republicans and 1 was a committee bill that was introduced by a committee controlled by Republicans (ID’s H 179).
      • 6 were introduced in Republican trifecta states and 1 was introduced in a divided state with a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor.
    • 3 proposals would repeal the use of RCV in state and federal elections.
    • 1 would allow absentee voters to used ranked ballots in races with runoff elections (TX’s HB 1444).

All of the legislation hostile to RCV was sponsored by Republicans or Republican controlled committees, but on closer inspection, the situation is more complex than unified Republican opposition and unified Democratic support. Republican legislators sponsored at least 16 pro-RCV proposals, either on their own or as part of a bi- or multipartisan group. A bill to use a form of RCV, called the contingent vote, in primary elections was passed by the Republican-controlled Utah House of Representatives (UT’s HB 205). And one of the two governors who vetoed an RCV ban was North Dakota’s Doug Burgum, a Republican. Conversely, while Democratic legislators didn’t sponsor any anti-RCV legislation, pro-RCV proposals in Democratic-controlled legislatures weren’t guaranteed success. Of the 65 proposals that would adopt, allow, study, expand, or otherwise advance the use of RCV that were introduced in legislatures controlled by Democrats, six (9.23%) became law. In short, advocates shouldn’t take Democratic support or Republican opposition for granted.

Overall, 2023 was a momentous year for RCV. Most state legislatures saw at least one bill or resolution about it. Oregon’s successful HB 2004 marks only the third time a state legislature (rather than the public via a ballot initiative) has passed a law that could bring RCV to state or federal elections.8 Ranked choice voting is now firmly on the national agenda.

  • ➤ Full list of RCV bills we tracked

    Download the full list (PDF)

    State Bill Number Category sub-category Final Disposition Last Action # of sponsors partisanship
    AZ HB 2552 RCV Ban vetoed Transmitted to Governor 39 R
    ID H 179 RCV Ban passed Signed into law N/A cmte bill
    MT HB 598 RCV Ban passed Signed into law 1 R
    ND HB 1273 RCV Ban vetoed Transmitted to Governor 12 R
    SD SB 55 RCV Ban passed Signed into law 28 R
    TX HB 3611 RCV Ban did not pass Introduced 12 R
    TX SB 921 RCV Ban did not pass Passed one chamber 5 R
    CA AB 1227 RCV Local office passed Signed into law 2 D
    CT SB 1226 RCV Local office did not pass Passed one chamber 17 16D,1R
    CT HB 5133 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    CT HB 6941 RCV Local office passed Signed into law 7 D
    GA HB 200 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 4 2D;2R
    IA HSB 183 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced n/a cmte bill
    IL HB 3749 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    MA H 711 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 33 32D / 1 R
    MA H 677 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    MA S 433 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 13 D
    MA H 725 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 9 D
    MA H 684 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 3 D
    MA H 664 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 3 D
    MA H 714 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    MA H 3790 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    MA H 3974 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 3 D
    MA H 4112 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    MD SB 878 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    MD HB 1104 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    MD HB 344 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 3 D
    MI SB 401 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 5 D
    MN HF 3276 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NJ S 3369 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 4 D
    NJ A 5039 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NJ S 267 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    NJ A 1113 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    NY A 3608 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    OR SB 506 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    PA SB 729 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    SC HB 4022 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 1R/1D
    TX HB 259 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    TX SB 359 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    TX HB 2825 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 6 D
    VA HB 2118 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 D
    VA HB 1751 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 1 R
    VT H 424 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced 2 D
    VT H 508 RCV Local office passed Signed into law 9 D
    WY HB 0049 RCV Local office did not pass Introduced na cmte bill
    AZ SB 1486 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 2 D
    CT HB 5701 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 22 21D,1R
    CT HB 5087 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    HI HB 1444 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 5 D
    HI SB 401 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 4 D
    IL SB315 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 2 D
    IL HB 2716 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    KS SB202 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced N/A cmte bill
    KY SB 61 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 R
    ME LD 1917 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Passed one chamber 6 D
    MN SF 2270 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 4 D
    MN HF 2486 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 35 D
    MT HB 739 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NC HB 851 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 12 D
    NH HB 350 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 9 8D, 1R
    NH HB 345 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 10 8D,1R,1I
    NM SJR 7 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NY A 479 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 2 D
    NY A 4351 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    OK HJR 1023 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    OR HB 3107 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced N/A cmte bill
    RI HB 5186 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 6 D
    VA HB 2436 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 1 D
    WI SB 528 RCV Multiple offices did not pass Introduced 21 11 R / 10 D
    CT SB 389 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) did not pass Introduced 8 7D,1R
    NJ SB 1712 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) did not pass Introduced 4 D
    NJ S 3784 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) did not pass Introduced 2 D
    NJ A 5410 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) did not pass Introduced 1 D
    OR HB 3509 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) did not pass Introduced 1 D
    OR HB 2004 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) passed Signed into law 18 D
    VA HB 2436 RCV Multiple offices (including presidential primaries) did not pass Introduced 1 D
    CO SB23-301 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 3 2D / 1R
    IL HB 2807 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 3 D
    IL SB1456 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 2 D
    IL SB 2363 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 1 D
    MO HB 739 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NY A 1218 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 1 D
    RI H 5649 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 10 D
    RI S 322 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 10 D
    VA SB 1380 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 4 D
    VA SB 1380 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 4 D
    VA HB 2301 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 1 R
    VA HB 2301 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 1 R
    VT H 347 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 7 6D,1R
    VT S.32 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Passed one chamber 6 D
    WA HB 1592 RCV Presidential primaries did not pass Introduced 1 D
    TX HB 1112 RCV Primaries only did not pass Introduced 1 D
    UT HB 205 RCV Primaries only did not pass Passed one chamber 2 R
    TX HB 1444 RCV Ranked mail ballots did not pass Introduced 3 D
    AK HB 4 RCV Repeal did not pass Introduced 4 R
    ME LD 768 RCV Repeal did not pass Introduced 7 R
    ME LD 1038 RCV Repeal did not pass Introduced 9 R
    MA S 413 RCV Special elections did not pass Introduced 2 D
    NM SB 416 RCV Special elections did not pass Introduced 2 D
    TX SB 637 RCV Special elections did not pass Introduced 1 D
    TX HB 1792 RCV Special elections did not pass Introduced 1 D
    CT HB 5712 RCV Study bill did not pass Introduced 1 D
    IL SB2123 RCV Study bill passed Signed into law 36 D
    MN HF 1830 RCV Study bill passed Signed into law 2 D
    MN SF 1636 RCV Study bill did not pass Introduced 1 D
    NJ A 2016 RCV Study bill did not pass Introduced 3 D
    NY S 5259 RCV Study bill did not pass Introduced 3 D
    PR RC0831 RCV Study bill did not pass Introduced 2 CVM

Footnotes

2 The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, The History of RCV. 

3 FairVote, Where is Ranked Choice Voting Used?.

4 Campaign Legal Center, Ranked Choice Voting. 

5 North Dakota’s RCV ban also banned another voting method called Approval Voting. Fargo, North Dakota uses Approval Voting for municipal elections. See Jim Monk, KVRR, Burgum vetoes bill that would have banned ranked-choice and approval voting.

6 FairVote, Where is Ranked Choice Voting Used?. 

7 FairVote, RCV in Presidential Primaries.

8 The first being North Carolina, which in 2006 passed G.S. 163-329, which adopted RCV for some statewide judicial elections. See Robert Joyce, Coates’ Canons NC Local Government Law, Instant Runoff Voting. The second is Maine, whose legislature passed LD 1083 in 2019, which expanded the state’s use of RCV to presidential elections. See League of Women Voters of Maine, Ranked Choice Voting Timeline.