Ranked Choice Voting: Constitutional or Not?

In the realm of electoral systems, ranked choice voting (RCV) has garnered significant attention. However, the constitutionality of such a system is often a topic of debate. RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, providing a more nuanced outcome in elections. This article aims to clarify whether RCV is indeed unconstitutional, based on legal principles and historical context.

Current Legal Status of RCV

It is important to note that RCV has not yet been the subject of litigation, therefore, there is no definitive ruling from the courts on its constitutionality. According to the principle of stare decisis, until a court declares a law unconstitutional, it is presumed to be legal.

The rules of voting are generally determined by individual states, while the Federal government plays a limited role in reviewing and challenging voting rules that may violate federal constitutional rights, such as discrimination based on race, age, or sex.

State-Level Implementation of RCV

There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that explicitly prohibits states from implementing RCV. States have the autonomy to introduce and adopt electoral systems that they believe are in the best interest of their electorate. For instance, Maine and several other U.S. states have successfully implemented RCV for their elections without facing constitutional challenges.

Imposition of RCV at the Federal Level

At the federal level, the U.S. House and Senate cannot unilaterally introduce or enforce RCV. Proposing or passing laws that mandate RCV for federal elections would be unconstitutional. This is because the constitution mandates that the Electoral College, as specified in Article II, Section I of the Constitution, determines how each state chooses its presidential electors. Any resolution or bill proposing RCV at this level would be attempting to alter the constitutional framework.

Non-Binding Resolutions and Constitutional Limits

A non-binding resolution by Congress does not constitute a binding law but could set a precedent or express congressional approval for practices such as interstate compacts. However, it cannot replace or override the constitutional mandate for the Electoral College. Attempts by the U.S. House and Senate to pass such resolutions would be seen as an unauthorized attempt to change the established constitutional process.

Constitutional Amendments and Electoral Reform

The constitution of the United States is highly protected and requires a specific process for amendment. Any major changes to the electoral process, such as adjusting the size of the U.S. House or Redistricting, must be done through a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

For instance, a law setting the size of the U.S. House to the cube root of the last census (less senators, plus DC representation if applicable) and mandating that the census bureau ensure compact and contiguous districts, would require a constitutional amendment. This process is rigorous and ensures that any fundamental change to the electoral framework is thoroughly vetted and debated by the states and the federal government.

In conclusion, while RCV is a popular and fair electoral system that has been successfully implemented at the state level, it cannot be imposed or altered at the federal level without constitutional changes. The U.S. House and Senate have the authority to support or advocate for RCV through non-binding resolutions but cannot enforce its adoption in federal elections.