Rank Choice Voting Update

Action Alert UpdateThe Board of Canvassers approved the RCV summary language on June 27. It's much better than what was previously being considered. It makes the process of RCV clear ... well, clear as mud. There's a good write-up at Michigan Fair Elections Institute.We're engaging grassroots activists across the state to defeat this proposal, and of course praying fervently for its defeat. If they're unable to get the required signatures, the proposal will not be on the 2026 ballot.The new language, that will be at the top of every petition sheet is as follows.Constitutional amendment to: require ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal offices, Governor/Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State, allowing voters to numerically rank candidates by voter preference starting in 2029; count votes in rounds, eliminating lowest-ranked candidate and reallocating their votes to remaining ranked candidates until candidate with most final-round votes is declared the winner; allow voters to rank at least 4 more candidates than positions to be nominated/elected unless insufficient number of candidates; authorize local jurisdiction to adopt use of RCV in local elections; move August primary to June or earlier in even year elections; require legislative funding and implementing legislation.Of course, the Board couldn't fully explain RCV in 100 words or less, because it's such a complex and terrible scheme.Thank you to all who wrote in, and especially for your prayers as we continue to fight against the evil that is plaguing our nation and our state.

Show Up In Person: Stand in solidarity with others who oppose RCV. A strong turnout matters!Where: Binsfeld Office Building, Room 1100 at 201 Townsend Street, Lansing, MI 48933When: Friday, June 27, 2025 — 9:00 AM

Make a Public Comment• Speak only about concerns with the summary language, not about whether RCV is good or bad.• Keep it short—limit is likely 2–3 minutes.• Be respectful and prepared.Example Concerns:• The language is vague (e.g., “rank candidates in order of preference”)• Terms like “certain local elections” and “timely notice” are unclear• Some claims are redundant or misleading

Submit Written Comments Before the HearingEmail: MDOS-Canvassers@michigan.govTo: Chair Richard Houskamp and the Board of State CanvassersWhat to Say: Share your concerns about the clarity of the ballot summary(See example below)

Watch the Hearing LiveLearn how the process works and see public comments in action.Tips for Commenting• Thank the Board for their time• Stay focused on the language, not the politics• Mention how the vague or misleading language will confuse voters

Chair Richard Houskamp and members of the Board of State Canvassers,

I am writing to express concerns about the current summary language for the Rank Choice Voting petition. My concerns focus solely on the summary’s clarity and accuracy, as required by law, and not on the merits of RCV itself.


  
    <strong>Vague Language on Ranked-Choice Voting:</strong> The phrase “rank candidates in order of preference” lacks explanation of RCV mechanics, such as vote redistribution or elimination rounds. This omission risks misleading voters about the process, failing to meet statutory clarity standards.
  
  
    <strong>Ambiguity in Majority Requirement:</strong> Stating candidates must “receive a majority of votes” omits how RCV achieves this through vote transfers. This incomplete description may confuse voters, assuming a traditional majority, thus undermining the summary’s accuracy.
  
  
    <strong>Unclear Scope of “Certain Local Elections”:</strong> The term “certain local elections” is vague, leaving voters uninformed about which elections are impacted. This lack of specificity obscures the proposal’s scope, violating requirements for an impartial and clear summary.
  
  
    <strong>Redundant and Ambiguous Timely Notice:</strong> Referencing “timely notice of changes to polling places or voting procedures” is redundant, as Michigan Election Law (Act 116 of 1954, Section 168.662) already defines notification timelines (e.g., 60 days standard, 21 days for temporary changes). Without defining “timely,” the summary creates ambiguity and risks misleading voters.
  
  
    <strong>Redundant Paper Ballot Language:</strong> The phrase “secure and accessible paper ballots in all elections” implies a new requirement, yet paper ballots are already mandated. This redundancy may mislead voters about the proposal’s necessity, compromising accuracy.
  
  
    <strong>Write-In Candidate Eligibility Omission:</strong> Allowing votes for “eligible write-in candidates” without defining “eligible” or verification processes risks voter confusion, failing to reflect the provision’s full intent.
  
  
    <strong>Primary Timing Imprecision:</strong> Requiring primaries “at least 140 days before the general election” lacks clarity on whether this alters existing schedules, obscuring the proposal’s impact and undermining summary clarity.
  
  
    <strong>Preservation Mandate Overstatement:</strong> The phrase “preserved for certification, recounts, and audits” suggests a new mandate, yet ballots are already retained for 22 months. This overstatement may mislead voters about the proposal’s effect.
  



I urge the Board to revise the summary to address these deficiencies, ensuring clarity and accuracy for Michigan voters. Thank you for your consideration.


Sincerely,

[Full Name, Jurisdiction of Residency]