Malcolm Rivera
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. It is a form of voting that has gained traction in the United States, with some states and cities adopting it for their elections. However, there is ongoing debate and legal challenges regarding its implementation, with some arguing that it violates the US Constitution. This paragraph will explore the topic of whether ranked-choice voting violates the US Constitution and provide an overview of the discussions and legal challenges surrounding its implementation in various states.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| States that use ranked-choice voting | Alaska, Maine, 53+ cities and counties |
| States that prohibit ranked-choice voting | Mississippi, Missouri, Wyoming |
| States that rejected ranked-choice voting | Nevada, Montana, Oregon |
| States that repealed ranked-choice voting | Ann Arbor, Michigan |
| Other names for ranked-choice voting | Preferential voting, instant-runoff voting |
| How ranked-choice voting works | Voters rank candidates in order of preference; the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and those votes are reallocated to the voters' second-choice candidate; this process continues until a candidate has a majority of the votes or only two candidates remain |
| Number of voters that ranked-choice voting affects | 11 million |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's ruling
On May 23, 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of ranked-choice voting. The court's opinion was in response to a request from the Maine State Senate, which had asked the court to review the state's ranked-choice voting initiative, approved by voters on November 8, 2016. The court unanimously advised that the initiative conflicted with the Maine Constitution, specifically with the requirement that candidates for state office win with a plurality of all votes cast. Under ranked-choice voting, only a candidate with a majority of votes cast can be elected.
Despite this advisory opinion, the Maine Republican Party continued to challenge the implementation of ranked-choice voting for the June 12, 2018, primary elections. On May 29, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ordered that ranked-choice voting be used in these elections. This marked the first statewide use of ranked-choice voting in the nation.
In the lead-up to the 2020 election, the Maine Republican Party sought to put a referendum on the ballot to end ranked-choice voting. However, their petition was rejected by Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap due to an insufficient number of valid signatures. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld this decision, ruling that the Republicans had not shown that Dunlap's requirement for signatures violated the First Amendment. This ruling allowed ranked-choice voting to be used in the 2020 presidential election in Maine, making it the first state to use ranked-choice voting in a presidential election.
Governors' Terms in Minnesota: How Long Do They Last?
You may want to see also
The First Amendment
In the context of ranked-choice voting (RCV), there have been legal challenges claiming violations of the First Amendment. For instance, in the 2020 election in Maine, there was confusion and uncertainty due to a dispute over the validity of signatures on a veto referendum to include instant runoff voting for the presidential election. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the secretary of state, allowing instant runoff to be used. An emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming a First Amendment violation, was denied by Justice Stephen Breyer.
Another example is the case in Missouri, where voters approved Amendment 7 in November 2024, which included a prohibition on ranked-choice voting in state elections. Governor Greg Gianforte signed a law stating that ranked-choice voting could not be used to determine the election or nomination of candidates for local, state, or federal offices. Similar laws or bills have been enacted or introduced in other states, such as Wyoming and North Dakota, reflecting ongoing debates and legal challenges related to the implementation of ranked-choice voting.
The legal challenges and debates surrounding ranked-choice voting often involve complex interactions between state laws and constitutional amendments, constitutional interpretations, and the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. While some argue that RCV enhances voter rights and representation, others raise concerns about its potential impact on free and fair elections, which are fundamental to the democratic process protected by the First Amendment.
In summary, while ranked-choice voting itself is not a direct violation of the First Amendment, its implementation and associated legal disputes can raise important questions about the intersection of voting rights, election processes, and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly protected by the First Amendment.
Drones, Drug Dogs, and Traffic Stops: What's Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Equal protection clause
The concept of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) has been challenged on the grounds that it may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause, found in the Fourteenth Amendment, mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law. This clause has been interpreted to require that voting systems treat all votes and voters equally and that each vote must be counted equally.
The central argument regarding RCV and the Equal Protection Clause revolves around the notion of "one person, one vote." This principle, derived from the Equal Protection Clause, establishes that each voter's ballot should carry the same weight and that each voter should have an equal opportunity to translate their vote into representation. Opponents of RCV argue that the system violates this principle by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, potentially giving certain voters' choices more weight than others.
In 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest tribunal, advised that RCV violated the state constitution. The court concluded that RCV's multi-round tabulation process contravened provisions requiring candidates to receive "a plurality of the votes" or the "highest," "largest," or "greatest" number of votes. This interpretation raised concerns about the legality of RCV nationwide, as nearly 40 state constitutions contain similar provisions.
However, supporters of RCV counter that it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or state constitutional provisions. They argue that RCV ensures compliance with the principle of "one person, one vote" by allowing voters to cast a single ballot in a single election. In the RCV process, voters rank candidates in order of preference, but ultimately, the candidate with the most votes once the counting is complete wins the election. This, proponents argue, is no different from traditional voting systems, where voters simply select their first-choice candidate.
The debate over the compatibility of RCV with the Equal Protection Clause underscores the complexities of electoral reform. While RCV aims to address issues of political polarization and gridlock by encouraging candidates to appeal to broader coalitions, it also faces legal challenges that question its conformity with established constitutional principles. Ultimately, the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and its application to RCV is subject to ongoing legal analysis and judicial review.
The Baker v. Carr Constitutional Conundrum
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State constitutions
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a system where voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated to the voter's second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of the votes.
RCV has been a controversial topic in the United States, with some states adopting it and others explicitly prohibiting it. As of April 2025, 15 states have banned RCV, including North Dakota, Wyoming, Missouri, and Mississippi. These states have passed legislation prohibiting the use of RCV in state, county, or local elections, citing the need for a consistent and easy-to-understand voting process.
However, other states have taken steps towards implementing RCV. For example, in the 2022 Nevada elections, voters initially approved a proposal to replace party primaries with a single nonpartisan jungle primary and use RCV in the general election. However, this proposal was rejected by voters in 2024. Similarly, Montana had two rejected initiatives on the 2024 ballot, CI-126 and CI-127, which could have led to the implementation of RCV in the state. Oregon also rejected a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment in 2024 that would have adopted RCV for federal and state elections.
The legality of RCV has been debated in state courts, with differing opinions. In Maine, the state's high court rejected RCV, while Massachusetts's highest court found that RCV did not violate similar provisions in the state's constitution. The California Law Review has examined the history and context of constitutional "plurality vote" provisions, concluding that state courts should not prohibit voters or legislators from adopting RCV for their elections.
The Constitution's Continental Congress Adoption Date
You may want to see also
Federal and state elections
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. In the US, RCV has been used in federal and state elections in Alaska and Maine. In 2022, voters in Nevada approved a measure to adopt RCV for federal and state elections (excluding presidential elections), but this was rejected by voters in 2024.
RCV has faced legal challenges, with some arguing that it violates state constitutions. In 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest tribunal, advised that RCV violated the state constitution. This decision was based on the interpretation of constitutional "plurality vote" provisions, which require a winner to be identified through a single popular election. However, others have argued that RCV does not violate these provisions and that it is a valid method of structuring the democratic process to meet the values and concerns of the electorate.
In some states, RCV has been prohibited for use in federal and state elections. For example, Wyoming and Missouri have passed laws prohibiting the use of RCV in any election within their states. Mississippi has also prohibited RCV in statewide, county, local, municipal, and school district elections.
The use of RCV in federal and state elections is a complex issue that involves legal, political, and democratic considerations. While some states have adopted RCV as a way to reform democratic processes and encourage candidates to appeal to broader coalitions, other states have rejected it due to legal concerns and preferences for other electoral systems.
Patrick Henry's Constitution: His Vision and Legacy
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is legal in the US and is used in Alaska, Maine, and 53 other cities and counties, representing roughly 11 million voters. However, some states have prohibited the use of RCV, including Mississippi, Missouri, and Wyoming.
Nevada voters approved a ballot measure to adopt ranked-choice voting for state and federal elections in 2022, but this was rejected by voters in 2024. Oregon also rejected a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment in 2024 that would have adopted RCV for federal and state elections.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest tribunal, advised in 2017 that RCV violates the state constitution. However, this decision was challenged by the California Law Review, which concluded that RCV does not violate constitutional provisions.
