County Clerks Unanimously Oppose Ranked-Choice Voting

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 10/15/2025) The Michigan Association of County Clerks (MACC) voted unanimously on a resolution opposing the ranked choice voting ballot measure being circulated by RankMIVote. 

The MACC resolution says 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.” 

It also says that since federal, state, county, city, township, school and other questions are on the same ballot in Michigan, ranked choice voting would complicate ballots and add inconsistency, voter confusion, voter fatigue and ballot-marking errors. 

Under ranked choice voting, a voter would rank their preferred candidates in order of their preference. The ballots would be counted in an instant runoff format. Candidates recording the fewest votes are knocked out of consideration. For voters who supported that candidate, their next choice would be counted in the next round of voting. 

A statement from MACC says the organization rarely takes positions on ballot questions but felt compelled to urge voters to oppose this one. 

“Michigan voters are used to knowing who won an election in a timely manner, so it’s incredibly important that we’re able to report accurate, unofficial results on election night,” said Kent County Clerk Lisa Posthumus Lyons in the statement. “Determining a winner will take drastically longer under ranked-choice voting. Delayed results erode the public’s trust by fueling uncertainty and misinformation." 

The statement also says that when implemented elsewhere, ranked choice voting has led to weeks-long delays in election results, which can lead to diminished voter confidence and provide opportunities for confusion or misinformation in the meantime.  

The state also uses three different voting system vendors, the resolution says, which would require results to be reconciled centrally by the state. 

Also included in the statement is the concern that recounts and audits under RCV are more complex and time-consuming. It says the process depends on multiple rounds of computerized vote reallocations rather than a paper-ballot recount.  

Implementing RCV would require Michigan clerks to administer multiple voting systems, meaning additional training, new tabulation producers, expensive voter education campaigns and specialized software would be needed. And, if only some races on the ballot require RCV and not all, that would mean the voter would need to understand two different sets of directions and when to use them.