Finally, bipartisan support to... *checks notes* insulate a political duopoly and preempt local control

Senators Bill Demora (D) and Theresa Gavarone (R) are sponsoring a bill to preemptively ban Ranked Choice Voting in Ohio. It’s a disappointing bipartisan power grab.

---

TLDR: Contact your State Senator and tell them to VOTE NO on SB63.

---

We are often pretty hard on Republicans, especially considering they are the party in power, and they’re constantly making horrendous political and policy choices. But we’re not letting the Democrats off the hook, either. And there is one democracy issue that is under bipartisan attack in Ohio: Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).

Today, the Senate General Government Committee will hear testimony on SB 63. Listen in on the testimony at 2pm on the Ohio Channel.

SB 63, a bill to prohibit localities from adopting ranked choice voting, has bipartisan cosponsors, State Senators Bill DeMora (D) and Theresa Gavarone (R). (FWIW, you can pretty much guarantee any voting bill with Gavarone as a sponsor is going to be BAD NEWS, and SB 63 is no exception.)

SUMMARY OF SB 63 - BAN RANKED CHOICE VOTING (RCV)

• Prohibits any election from being conducted in Ohio using ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting.

• Allows a county or municipal corporation to use its home rule powers under the Ohio Constitution to adopt a ranked choice voting system, but financially penalizes a local government that does so.

• Makes a county or municipal corporation that approves the use of ranked choice voting via a resolution or ordinance ineligible to receive distributions from the Local Government Fund until it rescinds the resolution or ordinance.

• Provides procedures for the Secretary of State, the Tax Commissioner, and county treasurers to follow in enforcing the penalty

We don’t like this bill for a few different reasons.

Preemption is bad, actually.

Preemption is a wonky legal concept we are likely to explore more this year, but the basic premise is, it’s a roundabout way for governments to meddle in decision-making normally outside of the scope of their authority, by legislating using a strategic double-negative.

For example, the state government may not have the authority to mandate that local governments allow plastic bags, so instead, they prohibit local governments from prohibiting plastic bags.

In other words, preemption is a very obvious loophole used by politicians to stick their nose where it doesn’t belong. Often, the fight about preemption gets lost in the standard partisan framing, given that usually, fights between levels of government are also between parties. Some recent examples of preemption in Ohio include the fight over banning flavored tobacco and plastic bags. The debates often focus on the substance of the thing being regulated, but the larger bad precedent often gets overlooked.

It’s actually really important to separate the merits of RCV from the merits of this bill. SB 63 must be thought of as a preemption issue as much as voting. Even if folks disagree about the merits of RCV, the idea that the state can preemptively prohibit localities from using it – and threaten to rip away funding if localities try to adopt it – is anti-democratic on its face.

Ranked Choice Voting gives voters more options and pushes politicians to build broader coalitions.

Past the preemption issue, we just kind of.. like RCV. Some people are indifferent to it, some hate it, some love it.

The people who like Ranked-Choice Voting prefer it because, mathematically, it results in the candidate with the broadest appeal among voters actually winning the seat. A novel concept, we know.

It also gets rid of the 3rd candidate “spoiler” effect, which is a pretext frequently weaponized to block third party candidates from even entering the political conversation. That’s why many people who wish they had more options in candidates prefer it. It’s also why political parties already in power hate it.

We believe that diversity of thought and broader coalitions are good things. With Ranked Choice voting, third party candidates can run for office and make their case for their political positions without the guaranteed vitriol of potential political allies.

There are others who argue that RCV is harmful. The problem is that a lot of those people tend to be well-funded right wing politicians and special interest groups or party insiders. But even if they weren’t, we tend to buy the former’s arguments more.

Who’s Working to Block Ranked Choice Voting? (Hint: 🚩🚩🚩)

Having mastered the art of a misleading, generic interest group names, organizations with insidious and extreme views of democracy often hide behind vanilla-sounding names. Let’s look at a few of the groups supporting SB63, which provide some good examples:

America First Institute, which is working to implement authoritarianism as quickly as possible. The person testifying today on behalf of America First Institute is Ohio’s former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who has a troubling track record to be sure (some reading here, here, here, and here). He has been a key voice in the effort to intentionally confuse Ohio voters about Issue 1 last fall and a vocal advocate of aggressive voter purges. He’s also currently running ads against the Cleveland clinic just to keep the anti-LGBTQ+ hate-train alive? Just for funzies?

Election Transparency Initiative, a well-funded organization that pushes The Big Lie about the “stolen 2020 election” and is pushing voter suppression bills across the country. It also happens to be run by a close Trump confidant and cabinet member. A coincidence, we’re sure.

Heritage Action of America – the literal authors of Project 2025. Of course, what’s a campaign against voter rights without our neighborhood anti-democracy cartoon villains.

Honest Elections Project, a billionaire funded voter suppression group, which pushed the ridiculous, fringe Iegal theories underpinning voter suppression efforts across the country. From the Article:

“The group calls itself the Honest Elections Project, which since 2020, according to corporate records filed in Virginia, has been a registered business alias for The 85 Fund. That organization has federal tax-exempt status, millions of dollars in donations and spending that are hard to trace, and ties to Leonard Leo — the Federalist Society's co-chairman and former executive vice president who helped build the Supreme Court's majority of conservative justices.”

Save our States, an opaque group with ties to CPAC.

All we’re saying is, when all these groups are emphatically pushing for an “election reform”, maybe that’s actually a giant, glaring, red frickin’ flag and we should run the other way.

Not all bipartisanship is created equal.

The fight against Ranked Choice Voting is an illustration of the fact that these days, the real fight is not right v. left, but people with power versus the rest of us.

The Democratic Party AND the Republican Party have worked to block Ranked Choice Voting in different parts of the country. The reasons are often, ironically, that it would give the other party an undue advantage. And in theory, they’re not totally wrong.

Ranked Choice Voting empowers marginalized voters or parties not currently in power. Another way of saying that is, it’s a check on the people in power. Ranked Choice Voting can even work as a counterweight to tactics like gerrymandering that fix the game before it’s even begun. So naturally, people already in power hate it, Democrat or Republican.

Now, no one is accusing the Ohio Democratic Party of being particularly powerful at the Statehouse at the moment, but in the economic powerhouse cities, democrats are the kingmakers. They’d like to keep that power. You can argue that you’re fine with that, but let’s at least call a spade a spade. And it goes without saying that the Ohio Republican Party will do just about anything to maintain their king-making privileges.

The one actual, consistent, undeniable shared interest between the Ohio Democratic Party leaders and the Ohio Republican Party leaders is the interest in protecting the political duopoly. Both parties have a significant chunk of their leaders calling the shots by giving orders, not reaching consensus among their membership. They’d like it to stay that way.

And it’s undeniable that RCV gives voters more options, for better or worse.

If you, like us, think SB63 is a bad idea, it’s time to let your lawmakers know.

Contact your State Senator and tell them to VOTE NO on SB63.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider supporting our work. We don’t have billionaire friends, and rely on the support of everyday folks like you. Even $5 a month can make a huge difference.