top of page

Revolutionizing Elections: How MC 9-25 Could Change Voting in Montgomery County

Writer's picture: Center for Local Policy Analysis (CLPA)Center for Local Policy Analysis (CLPA)

Recently, in the Maryland General Assembly, MC 9-25-Montgomery County-Voting Methods was voted out of the Montgomery County House Delagation's Education, Elections, and Housing Committee. It will profoundly impact how policymakers are elected in the county if enacted.


Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked Choice Voting

MC 9-25 would authorize the Montgomery County Council to adopt either a ranked-choice or an approval voting method for elections for certain local offices. Specifically, this legislation would allow the Montgomery County Council to implement ranked-choice voting or approval voting for the positions of County Executive, County Council members, Judges of the Circuit Court, State’s Attorney, Register of Wills, Sheriff, and Board of Education members. Similar bills, such as HB362 in 2022 and HB 423 in 2024, have been introduced in previous Maryland General Assembly sessions to authorize the Montgomery County Council to adopt ranked-choice voting for specific local offices.

What is Ranked Choice Voting


Ranked-choice voting (RCV) allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to the voters' next choices. This process continues until a candidate wins with a majority. Approval voting, on the other hand, lets voters choose any number of candidates, and the candidate with the most votes wins. The goal of this method is to improve the electoral process by better reflecting voter preferences and potentially increasing voter satisfaction and participation.


Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is used in various jurisdictions across the United States, allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting just one. As of November 2024, 51 jurisdictions, including two states (Alaska and Maine), three counties, and 46 cities, have implemented RCV for public elections, reaching nearly 14 million voters. In total, RCV is used in 62 jurisdictions across 24 states, including party-run primaries, special elections, and ballots for military and overseas voters in federal runoff elections. Many cities and counties have adopted RCV in recent years, with several set to implement it in upcoming election cycles.


RCV is also used in private organizations, sports awards, and numerous colleges and universities for student government elections. Internationally, countries such as Australia, Ireland, and Scotland use RCV for parliamentary or local elections. The Utah legislature has authorized a pilot program allowing cities to opt into RCV for local elections, and various U.S. states and municipalities continue to explore its adoption. Proponents argue that RCV promotes fairer elections, eliminates the need for costly runoffs, and ensures winners have broader voter support by allowing rankings rather than simple plurality wins.


Support for MC 9-25


Aside from the Montgomery County Delegation, past supporters of previous RCV bills HB362 in 2022 and HB 423 in 2024 have included advocates for electoral reform who believe that ranked-choice and approval voting can lead to more democratic outcomes. Supporters argued that the reforms of HB362 and HB423 would enhance the democratic process by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, reducing vote-splitting, and ensuring that winners have broader support. Organizations like FairVote advocated for RCV as a way to create fairer representation, leading to more inclusive election outcomes and discouraging negative campaigning. With RCV, candidates would need to appeal not only to their core base but also to voters who might rank them as a second or third choice, encouraging more positive campaign strategies and discouraging divisive rhetoric.


The Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club also backed HB 362 and HB 423, seeing RCV as a tool to promote a stronger and more representative democracy. They argued that a better electoral system could help elect leaders who prioritize environmental protection and sustainability policies. Additionally, the Sierra Club emphasized the importance of equity and inclusion in elections, believing that RCV would ensure all voices are heard and represented. By eliminating the fear of "wasting" votes on third-party or lesser-known candidates, RCV could encourage more diverse political participation and lead to a government that better reflects the priorities of the people.


Criticism and Challenges


A major criticism of both previous RCV bills is the financial burden they would impose on Montgomery County. Implementing RCV would cost the county an estimated $2 million in the first year under HB 362 and $1.1 million under HB 423, while approval voting would cost around $1 million and $601,000, respectively. These costs include software upgrades, election management system programming, additional election judges, new equipment, and voter education campaigns. Additionally, the Maryland State Board of Elections would face increased expenditures, with the state expected to contribute $252,000 in 2024 under HB 362 and $240,000 in 2026 under HB 423. Critics argue that these costs divert resources from other essential county services and question whether the benefits of RCV or approval voting justify such financial strain. Given that elections are already costly, some opponents believe these proposals impose an unnecessary financial burden without strong public demand for voting method reforms.


Opponents also raised concerns about how the bill would be implemented after it was enacted and the potential for confusion from voters come Election Day. Whether it is ranked choice voting or approval voting, they both differ greatly from the current system, which has the potential to lead to voter errors, increased ballot processing times, and longer waits for election results. Even though both bills had provisions for voter outreach, it likely will not be sufficient. This is especially true for older voters or those who are unfamiliar with alternative voting methods.


Additionally, election integrity concerns arise from the fact that RCV results would be tabulated using an independent system rather than being fully integrated into Maryland’s statewide election system. Reporting delays could result from this change, reducing public confidence in the election results. Some also argue that introducing a new voting system without strong public demand could create more problems than it solves.


Next steps


Now that MC 9-25 – Montgomery County Voting Methods has passed out of the Montgomery County Education, Elections, and Housing Committee, it moves to the full Montgomery County Delegation for review. At this stage, all delegation members will discuss and vote on whether to advance the bill to the Maryland General Assembly. If approved, the bill will be formally introduced in either the House of Delegates or the Senate, depending on its sponsorship. During this introduction, the bill receives its first reading, where its title and sponsors are officially recorded.


Text of MC 9-25 – Montgomery County Voting Methods






Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

©2020 by Center for Local Policy Analysis (CLPA)

bottom of page