Ranked choice voting fodder for Ohio publicity stunt

Ranked choice voting is not a radical idea. It was used for decades in parts of Ohio. And with two states (Maine and Alaska), two counties and 46 cities now using it elsewhere in the United States, advocates estimate 13 million voters currently have a chance to rank candidates on a single ballot. The ranking process, which appears to work seamlessly in these jurisdictions, then winnows the field down to a choice most voters ranked well, reducing the likelihood of extremists prevailing at either end of the ideological spectrum. But now that one single town in Ohio, University Heights, with fewer than 14,000 residents, had the temerity to consider the idea — to consider it, but not to move ahead with it — entrenched powers in Columbus have leapt into action to squash this idea without further ado. In what can best be described as a publicity stunt, a Republican lawmaker from Bowling Green has moved ahead briskly to introduce a bill to ban ranked choice voting in Ohio — violating (once again) the home rule powers the Ohio Constitution guarantees the state's cities, villages, and charter counties. State Sen. Theresa Gavarone's Senate Bill 137 would not just prohibit ranked choice voting but also deny to any Ohio municipality or charter county (Cuyahoga and Summit) that might have the temerity to try it anyway its share of state Local Government Fund aid. Gavarone agues that, "Ranked choice voting flies in the face of what the founders of the country and those in Ohio had in mind when they established the one vote, one voice model centuries ago," cleveland.com's Sabrina Eaton reported. By that measure — basing today's laws on what the founders "had in mind" when they wrote the Constitution in 1787 — women and Blacks might not be able to vote today. Nor is it a radical departure from local tradition. According to Rank the Vote Ohio, between 1913 and 1961, five Ohio cities used ranked-choice voting: Cleveland, Ashtabula, Toledo, Hamilton and Cincinnati. (With a November 1921 charter amendment, Cleveland voters adopted ranked choice voting for City Council elections. It was repealed ten years later). Ranked choice voting is also in keeping with a one-vote standard. Everybody still votes on one ballot on which they rank the candidates. Eaton describes the procedure: "Voters rank multiple candidates on a ballot in order of preference. If no candidate gets an initial majority of … first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice ballots drops out, and ballots for the eliminated candidate are reallocated to each voter's second-choice candidate. … Eliminating the candidate with the fewest ballots and reallocating votes to other contenders continues until a winner gets a majority." FairVote, another nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for ranked choice voting, reports that "51 American jurisdictions have RCV … reaching approximately 13 million voters. This includes two states" — Maine and Alaska — "three counties, and 46 cities." Alaska's use of RCV became widely known in November, when U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, won election to a full term, besting Republican ex-Gov. Sarah Palin. Gavarone herself doesn't appear to practice what she preaches on the supposed inviolability of voting rules. She is one of two primary sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 2 that put Issue 1 on Ohio's statewide Aug. 8 ballot. It would require a 60% "yes" vote on any proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution. For 111 years, the required "yes" vote has been 50% plus 1. Last year, Gavarone joined other General Assembly Republicans voting to all but abolish August special elections based on their low turnout and costs. This year, Gavarone co-sponsored a bill seeking to permit August elections — to decide constitutional amendments such as Issue 1. The Ohio Constitution guarantees home rule rights to the state's municipalities and charter counties. Gavarone should respect that, not try to undermine it more than the General Assembly already has. All else equal, if a city or village or charter county wants to try what it sees as an arguably more representative method of voting — one that's already in use elsewhere in this country — that's the community's business, not the Statehouse's. That's what the Ohio Constitution all but says, and what practicality demands. You'd think a supposedly conservative General Assembly would understand that. Evidently, not all its members do. — Cleveland Plain Dealer