House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB368 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs
Short Title
Prohibiting the use of any form of ranked-choice voting method for the conduct of elections.
Minutes Content for Thu, Feb 1, 2024
Jason Long, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, gave an overview of the bill. SB368 prohibits the use of the ranked-choice voting method for elections. Ranked-choice voting is a process where voters rank two or more candidates in order of preference, the ballots are tabulated in multiple rounds where the candidate who receives the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and continues on until a candidate receives a majority of votes cast. (Attachment 1)
After a period of questions of the revisor, the Chairman called for proponent testimony.
Proponent Oral Testimony
Madeline Malisa, Visiting Fellow, Opportunity Solutions Project, spoke as a proponent of the bill. She gave her perspective as a voter in Maine, where they use ranked choice voting (RCV). She said it has been a real disaster for voters, candidates and administrators. She said the main problems with ranked choice voting are that it requires legitimate ballots to be discarded, results are delayed, counting errors sow mistrust in the integrity of the election, it complicates the voting process, winners lose, and losers win. (Attachment 2) She also provided a ranked choice voter ballot for an election of the Minneapolis Mayor in 2013 as an example. (Attachment 3)
Jason Snead, Executive Director, Honest Elections Project, spoke as a proponent of the bill. He warned against the dangers of ranked choice voting, saying it makes every stage of the process more complicated and requires extensive education of voters. He stated New York spent $15 million educating voters on how to vote in an RCV election, and Maine was forced to produce a 19 page guide for voters. He said voting times easily double, which can deter people from voting because of long lines, tabulation takes longer, and post-election challenges are more likely. (Attachment 4)
The conferees stood for a period of questions and answers.
Proponent Written Only Testimony
Brett Anderson, We the People Kansas (Attachment 5)
Chad Ennis, Honest Elections Projects (Attachment 6)
Benee Hudson, private citizen (Attachment 7)
Jaime Kissinger, private citizen (Attachment 8)
Andrew Mangione Jr., Senior Vice President, Association of Mature American Citizens Action (Attachment 9)
Jannel Munk, private citizen (Attachment 10)
Dr. Gregory Seiler, DVM, private citizen (Attachment 11)
Kari Sue Vosburgh, private citizen (Attachment 12)
The Chairman called for neutral testimony.
Neutral Oral Testimony
Clay Barker, Deputy Secretary of State, General Counsel, spoke as neutral on the bill. He stated because of a law enacted in the 1860's in Kansas, all elections for any office must be by plurality vote, unless the legislature expressly provides otherwise. Thus, it would take legislative action for anything to be used other than the current plurality voting. He said it is good to be perfectly clear on what is allowed and what is not allowed in voting, which this bill would do. The Secretary of State's office sees from the administrative side why it wouldn't be good to implement, because it makes the system much more complex, there is a higher chance of errors, leads to ballot exhaustion and lower confidence in results. He stated there would be a large cost to implement, with many infrastructure changes required. (Attachment 13)
Sage Pourmirza, League of Kansas Municipalities, spoke as neutral on the bill. He stated they understand the goals of the bill from a cost perspective and concerns with voter fatigue, but also oppose any legislation that interferes with a city's Home Rule authority. (Attachment 14)
After a period of questions and answers, the Chairman called for opponent testimony.
Opponent Oral Testimony
Gilbert Moore, private citizen, spoke as an opponent of the bill. He stated there were incorrect statements made by the oral proponents, and said people like ranked choice voting because it gives them a greater selection of candidates. He said RCV can, over time, allow new blood and new parties to emerge, and it is a superior system to use than what we have. (Attachment 15)
Davis Hammet, Loud Light Civic Action, spoke as an opponent of the bill. He stated it's a bill banning something that does not happen. He said there is nowhere in the state where rank choice voting is being used, and this bill is a big government encroachment on home rule. (Attachment 16)
Cille King, League of Women Voters (LWV), spoke as an opponent of the bill. She stated LMV, at a national level, determined RCV is sustainable and gives voters more choices, as opposed to the current system which is a recipe for the dominance of motivated, extremist minorities. (Attachment 17)
Elaine Stephen, private citizen, spoke as an opponent of the bill. She stated she is a leader of Rank the Vote Kansas. She said the entire United States government is based on the idea of "majority rules, minority rights", but that is not how the last two gubernatorial elections have turned out, and RCV may have changed the outcome of those elections. She stated that RCV incentivizes candidates to appeal to a broader base, which leads to more positive campaigning. (Attachment 18)
Richard Pund, private citizen, spoke as an opponent of the bill. He stated the state should go in the opposite direction, and instead of banning RCV, should explicitly allow it. He said primaries are basically runoffs, which is similar to RCV, but with RCV, the voter would only have to go to the polls once to accomplish the same thing. He stated this would save the state a significant amount of time and money. (Attachment 19)
Opponent Written Only Testimony
Larry Bradley, private citizen (Attachment 20)
Chris Saxman, private citizen (Attachment 21)
Josh Daniels, private citizen (Attachment 22)
Andrew Booze, private citizen (Attachment 23)
Campbell McNorton, private citizen (Attachment 24)
Jesse Moore, private citizen (Attachment 25)
Jean Owen, private citizen (Attachment 26)
Devin Penny, private citizen (Attachment 27)
Nicholas Simpson, private citizen (Attachment 28)
Tim Tarkelly, Kansas Libertarian Party of Kansas (Attachment 29)
Dylan Tracy, private citizen (Attachment 30)
Following a period of questions and answers, the Chairman closed the hearing on SB368.
