Listen 7 min
Comment on this story Comment
Gift Article
Share
correction
A previous version of this article incorrectly quoted local activist Renee L. Bowser as telling the Board of Elections that she was worried about the impact of ranked-choice voting on vulnerable voters. She did not tell the board this. The article has been corrected with her accurate comments to the board.
A ballot initiative that would bring ranked-choice voting to D.C. and allow independent voters to participate in party primaries cleared its first hurdle Friday after the District’s elections board voted to allow it to move forward.
Fast, informative and written just for locals. Get The 7 DMV newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. ArrowRight
The Make All Votes Count Act of 2024 seeks to change how residents cast votes in elections and would enable more than 80,000 people registered as “unaffiliated” with a party to participate in primaries, which are closed to those voters.
But it’s a journey to get a proposed law on the ballot, and it starts with approval from the board of elections. To find that an initiative is “proper subject matter,” it can’t violate the Constitution, create discrimination or appropriate funds, among other criteria. On the heels of a Tuesday hearing, the board decided that the proposal, backed by the group Make All Votes Count DC, met the mark. The board assigned it a number: Ballot Initiative No. 83.
Advertisement
“I am sincerely grateful to the DC Board of Elections for conducting its due diligence and making the proper subject matter determination for my proposal to reform DC’s elections to be more inclusive of independent voters currently disenfranchised,” Lisa D.T. Rice, a Ward 7 advisory neighborhood commissioner who is leading the initiative, said in a statement.
Rice told the board that ranked-choice voting would ensure that candidates win at least 50 percent of the vote to advance to the general election, which isn’t always the case in D.C.'s crowded primaries.
In a ranked-choice system, voters would be allowed to rank candidates in order of preference (although they could rank just one candidate if they want). After the first round of vote tabulating, if one candidate has not secured at least 50 percent of the vote, a second round of counting begins. The lowest-performing candidate would be eliminated, and among voters who picked that candidate as their No. 1 choice, their votes would instead go to their No. 2 candidate. The process continues until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.
Advertisement
“We would be rewarded with politicians who must work hard for our support,” Rice said. “I strongly believe the combination of open primaries and ranked choice voting gives candidates and elected officials more independence and freedom to be true to their values and accountable to their constituents.”
Ranked choice has gained traction, most notably in Alaska and New York City. But it’s encountered opposition elsewhere, including in neighboring Arlington County, which used the method in its June primary but has decided against using it in the general elections, noting some voter confusion. (The primary race had two open at-large seats for the same pool of candidates, with a slightly different voting tabulation method.)
The D.C. Democratic Party opposes ranked-choice voting for similar reasons, arguing it could dissuade certain groups from participating if the voting method is more complicated. And the party has pointed to data showing that voters in the lower-income, majority-Black Wards 7 and 8 were already less likely to participate in at-large elections where they can pick up to two candidates.
Advertisement
Rice, anticipating those concerns, said in her opening remarks before the board that “the criticism that ranked-choice voting is too complicated for Black voters and seniors is insulting and archaic.”
Gary Thompson, chairman of the board of elections, said he did not find that the ranked-choice initiative violated the Constitution, D.C. Human Rights Acts or the D.C. charter — but as for the “wisdom” of ranked-choice voting: “This vote is to simply let the voters make that decision,” he said.
One of most contentious issues the board examined was a bit more technical: whether it would cost money to implement ranked-choice voting. Opponents raised issues such as redesigning ballots, launching educational campaigns and needing to purchase voting equipment — but ballot initiatives can’t appropriate new funds.
Advertisement
Make All Votes Count DC sought to adjust the initiative by adding that implementation would only proceed “subject to appropriations.” Even if voters approved the initiative, it would only go into effect if the council approved money for it, should a fiscal analysis find funding necessary.
“Of course there’s a certain moral force, equitable force to the voters’ decision that we would hope the council would respect and follow,” Joe Sandler, an attorney for the campaign, told the board, “but they’re absolutely under no legal obligation to do so.”
While the general counsel for the council didn’t think that adjustment met the letter of the law, the D.C. Attorney General’s Office believed it did — and so did the board. Thompson said he found Sandler’s argument persuasive. “It remains the completely independent decision of the D.C. Council if this passes, as to whether or not they would appropriate funds to implement it. That will remain completely within their discretion,” Thompson said.
Advertisement
The proposed initiative also had to overcome arguments against allowing unaffiliated voters to vote in party primaries from opponents that included the D.C. Democratic Party and Democratic activists, who argued that the practice violated the First Amendment’s right to association and encroached on the idea that political parties get to choose their nominees. “This initiative would counteract the voice and ability of the Democratic Party to put forth candidates whose voices and policies reflect those of the Democratic Party,” local activist Renee L. Bowser told the board.
Rice had argued before the board that prohibiting unaffiliated voters from participating in primaries amounted to voter suppression: Because of how dominant Democratic politics are in deep-blue D.C., the primary election tends to be where most of the action is.
“We should do all we can to fight against that disenfranchisement,” said Nolan DiFrancesco, one of the many D.C. residents who testified in support of the initiative.
Advertisement
Allowing unaffiliated voters in would “dilute” the party’s voice, Charles Wilson, chairman of the D.C. Democratic Party, told the board. No one is “forced” to register with any party, he noted, but if they want to participate in a Democratic primary, they should register as Democrats.
“Open primaries undermine the very reason why different political parties exist to offer their distinctive platforms and visions for democratic elections,” David Schwartzman, chair of the Political Policy & Action Committee of the D.C. Statehood Green Party, wrote in a message to the board after the board allowed the ballot measure to go forward during its virtual meeting Friday, adding that his party supports ranked-choice voting.
Thompson, the board’s chairman, said he did not find that allowing unaffiliated voters to participate would run afoul of the D.C. charter. “We will still have partisan elections in that after the primary process each party will have a nominee and only one on the general ballot,” he said.
Advertisement
While the Make All Votes Count initiative has cleared a critical hurdle, it still has a road to travel before it reaches the ballot. In the immediate future, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer is expected to review the initiative, as the board begins putting together official language describing the proposed law. Supporters must still gather enough signatures — and opponents may file legal challenges at various points.
Rice said in her statement after the board’s ruling that the campaign was looking forward to “engaging and educating voters” in the months ahead.
Comments
Gift this articleGift Article
More coverage of D.C.
HAND CURATED
They served decades in prison for a crime they say they didn’t commit
July 6, 2023
They served decades in prison for a crime they say they didn’t commit
July 6, 2023
Construction work begins at infamous Dave Thomas Circle intersection
July 20, 2023
Construction work begins at infamous Dave Thomas Circle intersection
July 20, 2023
He served the Army in Afghanistan. He was killed driving for Lyft in D.C.
July 8, 2023
He served the Army in Afghanistan. He was killed driving for Lyft in D.C.
July 8, 2023
View 3 more stories
Loading...
View more