Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Support and opposition to 2024 ranked-choice voting ballot measures
| Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures | |
|---|---|
| Pages: • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • History of RCV ballot measures • Electoral systems on the ballot • Local electoral systems on the ballot • Electoral systems by state | |
Last updated: Dec. 13, 2024
Six statewide ballot measures related to ranked-choice voting were up for election on November 5, 2024. Four measures in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon were to enact ranked-choice voting. Two measures in Alaska and Missouri were to prohibit or repeal ranked-choice voting.
As a result of the 2024 elections, the ballot measures in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon were defeated, meaning no new state adopted RCV. The ballot measure in Alaska was also defeated, meaning Alaska would continue to use RCV. Missouri voters approved the ballot measure to prohibit RCV.
Two other measures not included here in Arizona and Montana were to require a majority voting system, though not necessarily RCV.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates on their ballots. You can learn more about ranked-choice voting systems and policies here.
This article covers the spending and arguments that organizations and top donors made supporting and opposing RCV-related ballot measures in 2024.
According to the latest campaign finance reports Ballotpedia had processed by Dec. 13, 2024, campaigns supporting RCV received 19.7 times more in contributions than campaigns opposing RCV and reported 15.5 times more in expenditures.
Overall support for 2024 RCV-related ballot measures was not split along party lines. Former Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) and 115 other Republicans endorsed the Idaho measure to enact RCV, while Gov. Brad Little (R) opposed it.[1][2] Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and former Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll (D) supported the Colorado measure to enact RCV, and the Republican and Green parties opposed it.[3][4][5][6]
Heading into the 2024 elections, three states—Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii—used RCV for some or all statewide elections. Ten states statutorily prohibited RCV. You can learn more about the arguments for and against RCV here and more about campaign finance in previous RCV state ballot measures here.
The first section of this article reviews overall spending for and against RCV-related ballot measures in 2024. The following two sections highlight the arguments made by the top groups and donors supporting RCV and opposing RCV, respectively. Campaign finance totals by state ballot measure are presented at the bottom of the page.
Overview
Voters in four states—Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon—decided whether to enact ranked-choice voting. Voters in Alaska decided whether to repeal it, and voters in Missouri decided whether to prohibit it.
Twelve campaigns registered in support or opposition to the measures in total. Five registered in support of ballot measures that would enact RCV or opposed to measures that would repeal it, and seven registered in support of ballot measures that would repeal RCV or in opposition to measures that would enact it.
As of the latest campaign finance reports Ballotpedia had processed by Dec. 13, 2024, campaigns supporting RCV reported $64.9 million in contributions and $52.7 million in expenditures. Campaigns opposing RCV reported $3.3 million in contributions and $3.4 million in expenditures.
The most expensive RCV-related ballot measure was Nevada Question 3. As of September 30, the campaigns supporting the measure reported $19.9 million in contributions and $13.7 million in expenditures, while the campaign opposing the measure reported $2.1 million in contributions and $2.2 million in expenditures.
Article Four contributed to multiple campaigns, totaling $22.4 million. The group contributed $13 million in Nevada, $4.4 million in Alaska, $2.75 million in Oregon, and $2.2 million in Idaho. Unite America donated to multiple campaigns, totaling $18.9 million. The group contributed $5.78 million to support the RCV-related ballot measure in Colorado, $1 million in Idaho, $6.6 million in Nevada, and $5.5 million in Alaska.
Spending and arguments by groups supporting RCV
Campaigns supporting RCV reported $64.9 million in contributions and $52.7 million in expenditures. This section summarizes the spending and arguments by the primary groups that supported RCV.
Unite America was a top donor supporting RCV in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada:
- Alaska
- Unite America PAC: $5.5 million
- Colorado
- Unite America: $5.78 million
- Idaho
- Unite America Reform Fund: $715,000
- Unite America PAC Inc: $285,000
- Nevada
- Unite America: $6.4 million
- Unite America Inc: $207,650
Kent Thiry was the co-chair of Unite America at the time of the 2024 elections and the second top donor supporting RCV in Colorado, giving $5.98 million.[7]
| “ |
I think this is about bringing voice and choice back to the people. Whether they’re Democrats, Republicans or independents, they need their voice and choice back.[8] |
” |
| —Kent Thiry, sponsor of the Colorado initiative and former CEO of DaVita[9] | ||
Reclaim Idaho was a top donor supporting RCV in Idaho, giving $160,000.
| “ |
The most widespread grievance with the current system is that independent voters feel like they don’t have a voice. Those who haven’t aligned themselves with a political party understand that they are being blocked from voting in the most important elections, and it’s very clear to them that is unfair. Beyond the independent voters, Democrats and Republicans and nearly everyone else sympathize with independent voters and want them to have a voice.[8] |
” |
| —Luke Mayville, co-founder of Reclaim Idaho[10] | ||
Oregon Ranked Choice Voting was the top donor supporting RCV in Oregon, giving $1.7 million in-kind.
| “ |
I think we’ll see more voices and better choices, we’ll get more candidates who are going to run. We will see a more diverse representation. And we’ll see majority winners, which I think adds a lot more legitimacy when people are elected.[8] |
” |
| —Blair Bobier, co-founder of Oregon Ranked Choice Voting Advocates[11] | ||
Alaskans for Better Elections was a top donor supporting RCV in Alaska.
- Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc: $294,273
- Alaskans for Better Elections Foundation: $55,421
The following quotes were featured on the Alaskans for Better Elections homepage:
| “ |
I believe in good public policy. Alaska's ranked choice voting system is good public policy. It gives a voice to the majority of Alaskans who are not at either end of the political extremes. It also allows for better candidates, qualified individuals who can take thoughtful, moderated positions that would not have allowed them to survive a primary vote in the last few years, in either political party.[8] |
” |
| —Bryan Schroder, frmr. U.S. attorney for the District of Alaska[12] | ||
| “ |
Our current open primary and ranked choice voting system allows for more freedom, more choice, more influence, and greater participation among Alaskans. It facilitates broader discussion by the candidates, and that produces more informed constituency—which means election outcomes are driven directly by the will of voters. The ability to have this type of engagement is restorative for the long-term intent of our democratic system. It decentralizes power and empowers voters[8] |
” |
| —Ana Hoffman, co-chair of Alaska Federation of Natives and president of the Bethel Native Corporation[12] | ||
Spending and arguments by groups opposing RCV
Campaigns opposing RCV reported $3.3 million in contributions and $3.4 million in expenditures. This section summarizes the spending and arguments by the primary groups that opposed RCV.
Ranked Choice Education Association was the top donor opposing RCV in Alaska, giving $152,000 to Alaskans for Honest Elections.
| “ |
We stand for the Alaskans who felt misled, for those who found the RCV ballot confusing, and for everyone who believes in the sanctity of the straightforward voting process. Our message is clear: it’s time to remove Ranked Choice Voting from our state. ‘Let’s Take Out The Trash, Let’s Rid The Rank’ is more than a slogan; it’s a call to action for all Alaskans who value transparency and simplicity in their electoral system.[8] |
” |
| —Phil Izon, lead organizer of Alaskans for Honest Elections[13] | ||
Larry Williams was the top donor opposing RCV in Idaho, giving $125,000 to the One Person One Vote campaign.
| “ |
So, why is there such a strong push for this change [to ranked-choice voting]? The answer lies in the desire of progressive activists to alter electoral rules to secure more victories and the ambition of billionaires to diminish the power of local grassroots organizations in favor of their own influence. This sets the stage for a clear conflict: a battle between entrenched, trusted local governance and a new system driven by outside interests and significant financial clout.[8] |
” |
| —One Person One Vote[14] | ||
Coloradans for Accessible and Secure Elections was a top donor opposing RCV in Colorado, giving $46,000 to the Voter Rights Colorado campaign.
| “ |
These wealthy backers always promise it will improve our politics. But a 2023 University of Minnesota study of states with RCV elections found it does not decrease negative campaigning, polarization in elections nor increase diversity of elected officials. And, in fact it has shown to decrease turnout, increase voter errors and voter confusion.[8] |
” |
| —Voter Rights Colorado[15] | ||
The Nevada Alliance was the top donor to the opposition campaign in Nevada—Protect Your Vote Nevada—giving $2.1 million.
| “ |
Question 3 would make it more complicated, confusing, and time-consuming to cast a ballot. Nevadans are already busy keeping the state’s 24/7 economy moving and growing. Question 3 would create a complicated new ranked-choice voting system that requires voters to learn about five candidates and then rank their top five choices, which will make casting your ballot take much longer.[8] |
” |
| —Protect Your Vote Nevada[16] | ||
As of October 29, the opposition campaigns in Oregon—Advance Liberty and Concerned Election Officials—reported $9,285 in total contributions.
| “ |
We receive a lot of complaints about it taking so long to get results. This will delay results further. And we feel like we’re going to get complaints on transparency because we aren’t the final tally that goes forward.[8] |
” |
| —Rochelle Long, Klamath County Clerk and director of Concerned Election Officials[17] | ||
Campaign finance totals by state measure
This section lists the reported campaign contributions and expenditures of campaigns that registered to support or oppose the RCV-related ballot measures on the November 5, 2024 ballot.
Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
A "yes" vote supported establishing top-four primary elections and ranked-choice voting for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University board of regents, state board of education, and state legislature. |
A "no" vote opposed this initiative, thereby maintaining semi-closed primaries and plurality vote single-winner general elections for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University board of regents, state board of education, and state legislature. |
Campaign finance
As of October 28, 2024[18][19][20]
| Spending on Colorado RCV measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Support/Oppose | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Colorado Voters First | Support | $14.5 million | $135,224 | $14.7 million | $14.3 million | $14.4 million |
| Voter Rights Colorado, First Choice Counts | Oppose | $391,482 | $67,237 | $458,720 | $292,313 | $358,549 |
Top donors and amounts (Support):[18]
- Kent Thiry: $5.98 million
- Unite America: $5.78 million
- Ben Walton: $2 million
- Chevron Corporation: $1 million (in-kind)
- Wilmot Reed Hastings: $1 million
- Kathryn Murdoch: $500,000
Top donors and amounts (Oppose):[19][20]
- Working Families Power: $96,315 (in-kind)
- Working Families: $75,000
- AFSCME: $75,000
- New Era Colorado: $53,000
- Coloradans for Accessible and Secure Elections: $46,000
Idaho Proposition 1, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
A "yes" vote supported establishing top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections, which would apply to congressional, gubernatorial, and state, and county elected offices. |
A "no" vote opposed establishing top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections, thereby maintaining that all political party candidates for federal, state, district, and county elective offices must be nominated via primary election. |
Campaign finance
As of November 30, 2024[21][22]
| Spending on Idaho RCV measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Support/Oppose | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Idahoans For Open Primaries | Support | $5.6 million | $11,880 | $5.6 million | $718,642 | $730,522 |
| One Person One Vote | Oppose | $231,401 | $0 | $231,401 | $210,381 | $210,381 |
Top donors and amounts (Support):[21]
- Article IV: $2.22 million
- Unite America Reform Fund: $715,000
- Unite America PAC: $285,000
- Way Back PAC: $250,000
- Reclaim Idaho: $160,000
Top donors and amounts (Oppose):[22]
- Williams, Larry: $125,000.00
- Jordan Redman: $75,000
- Hubble, Don: $10,000.00
- Avimor Development: $5,000.00
Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
A "yes" vote supported establishing open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections, which would apply to congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections. |
A "no" vote opposed establishing open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections, which would apply to congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections. |
Campaign finance
As of September 30, 2024[23]
| Spending on Nevada RCV measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Support/Oppose | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Vote Yes on 3, Inc. & Nevada Voters First | Support | $19.9 million | $0 | $19.9 million | $13,7 million | $13.7 million |
| Protect Your Vote Nevada | Oppose | $2.1 million | $0 | $2.1 million | $2.2 million | $2.2 million |
Top donors and amounts (Support)[23]
- Article IV: $13 million
- Unite America: $6.4 million
- Wynn Resorts Ltd: $250,000
- Unite America Inc.: $207,650
Top donors and amounts (Oppose)[23]
- Nevada Alliance: $2.1 million
Oregon Measure 117, Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections Measure
A "yes" vote supported implementing ranked-choice voting primary and general elections for federal and state executive offices beginning in 2028. |
A "no" vote opposed implementing ranked-choice voting primary and general elections for federal and state executive offices, thereby maintaining the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. |
Campaign finance
As of October 29, 2024[24][25]
| Spending on Oregon RCV measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Support/Oppose | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Yes on 117 & Mobilize Oregon Voters | Support | $4.7 million | $5.4 million | $10.1 million | $4.2 million | $9.6 million |
| Advance Liberty & Concerned Election Officials | Oppose | $9,285 | $0 | $9,285 | $12,981 | $12,981 |
Top donors and amounts (Support):[24]
- Oregon Ranked Choice Voting: $5.8 million
- Article IV: $2.75 million
- Our American Future Action: $275,000
- Building Power for Communities of Color: $250,000
- Our Oregon: $202,857
Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
A "yes" vote supported eliminating the top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections in Alaska, which were adopted in 2020, and establishing a party primary system. |
A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus keeping top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections in Alaska. |
Campaign finance
As of October 26, 2024[26][27][28]
| Spending on Alaska RCV measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Support/Oppose | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Alaskans for Honest Elections, Yes on 2 | Support | $320,772 | $202,028 | $522,801 | $452,060 | $654,088 |
| Alaska for Better Elections, No on 2 | Oppose | $14.1 million | $499,662 | $14.6 million | $13.8 million | $14.3 million |
Top donors and amounts (Support):[26][27]
- Ranked Choice Education Association: $152,000
Top donors and amounts (Oppose):[28]
- Unite America PAC: $5.5 million
- Article Four: $4.4 million
- Action Now Initiative, LLC: $2 million
- Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc: $294,273
- Final Five Fund: $250,000
Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment
- See also: Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (2024)
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to:
|
A "no" vote opposed this amendment, thereby maintaining that "all citizens of the United States" who are 18 years of age or older may vote in elections and that ranked-choice voting may be enacted at the local or state level via ordinance or state statute. |
Campaign finance
As of November 30, 2024[29]
| Spending on Missouri RCV measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Support/Oppose | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| N/A | Support | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Preserve Local Elections | Oppose | $1,652 | $0 | $1,652 | $3,562 | $3,562 |
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Idaho Capital Sun, "Former Idaho Gov. Butch Otter endorses open primary ballot initiative," September 13, 2023
- ↑ X, "Idaho Freedom Action on September 27, 2024," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ Reason, "States Will Choose Whether To Adopt or Abandon Ranked Choice Voting," September 26, 2024
- ↑ Yes On 131, "‘Yes on 131’ campaign launches with 100+ endorsements from throughout Colorado," September 17, 2024
- ↑ KOAA, "Colorado’s political parties come out against ranked-choice voting, open primary initiative," September 10, 2024
- ↑ Colorado Republican Party, "2024 Colorado Ballot Questions," accessed October 7, 2024
- ↑ Colorado Politics, "Proposition 131: Colorado voters will decide fate of ranked-choice voting | WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW," September 27, 2024
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Colorado Sun, "A radical rethinking of Colorado elections," November 20, 2023
- ↑ Idaho Capital Sun, "Former Idaho Gov. Butch Otter endorses open primary ballot initiative," September 13, 2023
- ↑ OPB.org, "Measure 117: Oregonians weigh major changes to election system through statewide ranked-choice voting," October 3, 2024
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Alaskans for Better Elections, "Home," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ Alaska Watchman, "Nearly 43,000 petition signatures turned in to overturn ranked choice voting," January 13, 2024
- ↑ One Person One Vote, "Learn More About Proposition 1," October 4, 2024
- ↑ Voter Rights Colorago, "Home," accessed October 4, 2024
- ↑ Protect Your Vote Nevada, "VoteNoOn3," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ OPB.org, "16 county clerks in Oregon raise concerns around ranked-choice ballot measure," August 30, 2024
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Colorado TRACER, "Colorado Voters First," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Colorado TRACER, "Voter Rights Colorado," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Colorado TRACER, "First Choice Counts," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Idaho Sunshine, "Idahoans For Open Primaries," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Idaho Sunshine, "One Person One Vote," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 Nevada Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Report Search," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Yes on 117," accessed October 25, 2024
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Concerned Election Officials," accessed October 25, 2024
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 APOC Online Reports, "Alaskans for Honest Elections," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 APOC Online Reports, "Yes On 2," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 APOC Online Reports, "Alaskans for Better Elections," accessed October 1, 2024
- ↑ Missouri Ethics Commission, "Ballot Measures by Election Search," accessed October 25, 2024
| ||||||||||||||
