1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

​I am writing to respectfully but urgently request that you veto Senate Bill 63, which seeks to prohibit the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) across the state and punish local municipalities that choose to implement it. ​The primary justification offered by the legislature for this ban—that Ohio voters are "too confused" by RCV—is an insult to the intelligence of your constituents. As noted in recent public discourse, this legislation operates on the patronizing assumption that Ohioans lack the mental capacity to perform a task as simple as ranking a few candidates in order of preference. In reality, Ohioans successfully navigate complex choices in their daily lives, and there is no evidence to suggest that our voters are less capable than those in the dozens of other states and cities where RCV is already functioning effectively. ​Beyond the dismissive rhetoric, I urge you to consider the following reasons for a veto: ​Infringement on Home Rule: This bill is a direct assault on the "Home Rule" authority granted to Ohio municipalities by our State Constitution. Local communities like Cincinnati and Lakewood should have the right to decide for themselves how to best conduct their local elections without the threat of having their Local Government Fund distributions withheld as a form of state-level "blackmail." ​A Solution in Search of a Problem: There is no "chaos" or "insanity" currently caused by RCV in Ohio because the legislature is banning a tool before most communities have even had the chance to try it. We should be encouraging "laboratories of democracy" at the local level, not stifling innovation through pre-emptive bans. ​Voter Empowerment: Ranked choice voting ensures that winners have the broadest possible support and helps mitigate the "spoiler effect" that often leaves voters feeling their ballot was "wasted." By banning RCV, the state is effectively limiting the ways in which citizens can express their political will. ​Governor, you have often spoken about the importance of local control and the strength of Ohio’s electoral system. Signing SB 63 would contradict those values by centralizing power in Columbus and signaling to the world that you agree with the legislature's assessment: that Ohio voters aren't smart enough to handle more options at the ballot box. ​I ask that you stand up for the voters of Ohio and the autonomy of our local communities by vetoing this short-sighted legislation.