Michigan Association of County Clerks

Resolution in Opposition to Ranked Choice Voting October 14, 2025

WHEREAS, the Michigan Association of County Clerks (MACC) is committed to ensuring secure, accurate, accessible, and transparent elections for all voters in the State of Michigan; and

WHEREAS, as an association of election officials, the Michigan Association of County Clerks rarely takes formal positions on statewide ballot initiatives, recognizing that voters themselves are the final authority; and

WHEREAS, in this instance, the RankMIVote proposal directly and substantially alters the administration of elections in Michigan, placing new and complex responsibilities on clerks and their teams, and thus requires careful evaluation from those charged with carrying it out; and

WHEREAS, Michigan voters already face some of the longest and most complex ballots in the nation, covering federal, state, county, city, township, school, and special district contests on a single ballot, and the RankMIVote proposal would further complicate ballots by requiring voters to numerically rank candidates in certain contests while others remain unchanged, adding inconsistency, voter confusion, and voter fatigue; and

WHEREAS, research and real-world experience show that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) systems increase voter confusion and ballot-marking errors, and that ballot exhaustion, when a voter’s ballot no longer counts because all of their ranked candidates have been eliminated, occurs at significant rates, leaving some voters without representation in the final results; and

WHEREAS, Michigan’s constitution grants the right to straight-party voting in partisan general elections, a provision that does not align with the RankMIVote system, creating uncertainty about how overrides, mixed rankings, or non-certified candidates would be treated under Michigan law; and

WHEREAS, recounts and audits under CV are significantly more complex and time-consuming, since the process depends on multiple rounds of computerized vote reallocations rather than a straightforward paper-ballot count, making it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the transparent recount procedures Michigan voters are accustomed to; and

WHEREAS, jurisdictions that have implemented CV have experienced substantial delays in reporting results, sometimes lasting days or weeks, which can diminish voter confidence and provide opportunities for confusion or misinformation. Such delays would be exacerbated in Michigan, where the use of three different voting system vendors would require results to be reconciled centrally by the state, reducing transparency and public trust; and

WHEREAS, implementing CV would require Michigan clerks to simultaneously administer multiple voting systems, necessitating extensive training, costly new tabulation procedures, expensive voter education campaigns, and specialized software, likely reliant on third-party or open-source vendors to interpret results, while ongoing costs for ballot printing and paper would fall on local governments and taxpayers. Ballots would also become more complicated, with only some contests using ranked choice voting, thereby requiring two different sets of instructions on the same ballot and further confusing voters; and

WHEREAS, a recent survey showed that 65% of Michiganders oppose RV, and more than a dozen states have banned it due to concerns about complexity, disenfranchisement, and loss of voter trust;

WHEREAS, Michigan’s election system is uniquely structured, with more than 1,500 city and township clerks directly administering elections under statutes tailored to Michigan’s decentralized framework, making it one of the most locally managed election systems in the nation. While Ranked Choice Voting may function within other states’ centralized or differently organized election codes, Michigan’s constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, and long-standing practices--including straight-party voting, uniform ballot design, and established recount and audit procedures--are deeply interwoven; and layering an CV system onto this framework risks disrupting a cohesive ecosystem that already ensures accessibility and transparency, and may ultimately undermine the ability to deliver the quality of election administration that Michigan voters expect and deserve.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Michigan Association of County Clerks, in its role as stewards of Michigan’s election system, respectfully opposes the RankMIVote ballot proposal due to its impact on ballot clarity, voter understanding, election costs, timely reporting of results, and overall election integrity; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Michigan Association of County Clerks urges voters, legislators, and partner organizations to reject the RankMIVote ballot initiative and instead support efforts to strengthen Michigan’s existing, trusted election system to ensure clarity, accessibility, and confidence for all voters