Action | Ranked Choice Voting Regulations and Ballot Standards |
Stage | Proposed |
Comment Period | Ended on 8/9/2021 |
![]() |
The Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) respectfully submits these public comments to the Virginia Department of Elections in response to the Proposed Regulation for Ranked Choice Voting.
CLC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening the democratic process across all levels of government. Since the organization’s founding in 2002, CLC has participated in major redistricting, voting rights, and campaign finance cases before the U.S. Supreme Court as well as other federal and state court cases. Our work promotes every citizen’s right to participate in the democratic process.
This Proposed Regulation builds on Virginia’s commitment to adopting Ranked Choice Voting (“RCV”). Last year, the Virginia General Assembly approved a new law giving localities the option to pilot ranked choice voting. The proposed regulation, with the suggested changes from Chris Hughes at the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, would establish clear standards for administering RCV in the state as part of this program.
RCV will provide numerous benefits to voters. Under the proposal, voters will have more choice and a greater number of candidates who are responsive to voter concerns. Localities can also significantly reduce their election costs by eliminating the need for a runoff when no candidate captures more than 50% of the vote. RCV was used by 22 jurisdictions in their most recent elections, and 53 jurisdictions are projected to use RCV in their next election or the one following.
CLC Recommendations for the Proposed Rule
CLC supports the Department of Elections’ efforts to adopt RCV for certain local elections. We make the following recommendations to help ensure that the implementation is successful across Virginia and that there is sufficient accessibility, transparency, and ultimately confidence in election results.
The final rule should incorporate, in full, the revisions proposed by the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center (“RCVRC”).
CLC joins the RCVRC in its comment letter to the Proposed Regulation, affirming its suggested language for revised definitions (Section 10); more detail about RCV adoption (Section 30); clarifications to ballot treatment (Section 40); additional detail of the round-by-round count for RCV elections (Section 50); and an expanded outreach section (Section 80). CLC also agrees with the reasons outlined for these changes as discussed by RepresentUs, FairVote, and Unite America. Taken together, these suggested modifications represent important changes to the Proposed Regulation to make certain that RCV is implemented in a clear and workable fashion.
Procedures for adopting RCV should be clarified for effective administration of the voting regime.
Updated language is necessary to clarify certain procedures regarding the adoption of RCV as established by Section 30 of the Proposed Regulation. As drafted, the section raises three primary issues that deserve further attention. The Department of Elections should make clear that RCV may be adopted for either primary or general elections; the deadline for adopting RCV should be extended to 180 days before an election; and the regulations should establish the minimum number of candidates necessary for RCV to be implemented during primary or general elections.
More expansive mandates for voter outreach and education is needed to ensure RCV is successful for all voters.
CLC urges the Department of Elections to expand Section 80 of the Proposed Regulation to ensure that voters are appropriately informed about RCV ahead of any election where RCV will be used. In the interests of voter education, we recommend the final rule more clearly direct localities on the dissemination of education information about RCV. To ensure that information is distributed in a timely manner, educational materials should be provided no more than 60 days before the specified election. The information should be disseminated publicly through circulation in the local newspaper, posted on the locality’s website, or mailed to active and inactive voters eligible to vote in the election. The Department of Education should also consider encouraging more than one distribution method to ensure that all voters have access to the materials.
Additional means of distributing information that are both simple and cost-effective should also be considered. For instance, residents of Las Cruces, New Mexico, where RCV was recently adopted, receive a mock ballot that allows them to rank preferences for lunch options ahead of an election. Alternative distribution measures may include, but are not limited to, disseminating mock ballots through existing community-wide mailings, such as utility bills, and publicizing education information in public places, such as libraries and motor-vehicle offices, and through public broadcasting media and online sources, including non-English-speaking outlets, as applicable.
Education and outreach materials should also be made available in multiple languages when necessary as required by Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-128. This statute models, and strengthens, the language minority protections outlined in Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act. This will enable more eligible voters in Virginia to have working knowledge of RCV ahead of a formal vote.
Conclusion
Virginia is taking an important step forward with its RCV program and CLC appreciates the state’s continued leadership in this arena. We also respectfully urge the Department of Elections to adopt the recommendations discussed above. We are available to answer any questions that the Board may have as well as provide any additional information. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.