Ann Arbor once had what some would now describe as ranked choice voting. At the time, it was called preferential voting. I participated in it as a voter and as an attorney for the City. I have also tried to deal with the concept when it was proposed as a recent amendment to the charter.

When students obtained the right to vote in Ann Arbor, the Human Rights party was formed. Members of the party were elected to the City Council. Then there was a mayoral election with Democrat, Republican and HRP candidates. Republican Jim Stepenson won with a plurality of the votes cast. The HRP then succeeded in getting the Charter amended to allow voters to designate second choices which would be counted if no one received a majority of the votes. In the only Ann Arbor election conducted under that system, Jim Stephenson ran against Democrat Albert Wheeler and HRP candidate Carol Ernst. Stephenson received the highest number of votes, but not a majority. So the second choice votes were counted.

When those votes were added to Wheeler’s first choice votes, he was declared elected as Mayor.

Stephenson then filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the voting system. As Acting City Attorney, I defended City’s determination that Wheeler was the winner. A visiting circuit judge was appointed to hear the case. I argued the City’s position in a Monroe County court room. The judge then held that the voting system was legal.

Preferential voting had to be done with the paper ballots. Counting was slow and cumbersome. It was not popular. Before the next city election, voters approved a charter amendment to repeal it.

State election officials contend that since the time of the Ann Arbor election experiment, the law has changed so that elections with rank choice voting will only be legal if the state election law is amended. That view may be legally correct. However, the City Council got voters to approve a contingent Charter amendment for “Ranked Choice Voting.” It is contingent on a state law allowing it and on the City obtaining the voting machine equipment to implement it.

The problem with the amendment is that Ranked Choice Voting is not defined by Michigan law. It is a concept that can take many forms. In my experience it is not proper for a city to request ballot approval of a speculative concept. But Assistant Attorney General George Elworth advised that the amendment could be properly submitted to the voters. I have dealt with Mr. Elworth for many years. He is almost as old as I am. With me, he has been a real stickler for details. I once drafted a charter amendment to change the pronouns in a village charter to gender neutral. To put the work into a form to submit to the voters, Elworth insisted I put it in 5 different ballot questions. So it was a surprise for me to find he had approved submitting to Ann Arbor voters a ballot question incorporating a concept that was not defined by state law. I asked for his rationale, and he said that he only provided his opinions to state officials and not to private citizens like me. (He apparently put his stickler hat back on when he wrote his negative opinion regarding the charter amendment contained in Proposal D.)

The RCV language contained in section 13.5 of the Charter contains details of how to count ranked votes to determine the election winners. It contains no change for the process of nominating candidates. That process includes a primary election from which only one candidate can emerge for each party. If the process continues as it has recently with only one Democrat nominated per ward, there can be no choices for RCV to rank in the general election. In other words, so long as the current partisan nominating process continues, the Rank Choice Voting provisions of the Charter can only be meaningless. On the other hand, if the charter is amended to provide for nonpartisan voting as described in Proposal C, that can result in a choice of candidates on the November ballot. Rank Choice Voting can then take effect if approved by state law.

 –Bruce Laidlaw

⬅️ Back