Despite a new lawsuit against Tennessee over instant runoff voting, the Legislature voted Monday to prohibit the method of ranked choice voting.
The decision came a week after a group of Memphis political activists sued Tennessee’s elections coordinator because of his efforts to stop instant runoff voting, which Shelby County voters approved 14 years ago.
Sen. Brian Kelsey, a Germantown Republican, sponsored the legislation, calling instant runoff voting a “very confusing and complex process that leads to lack of confidence” in the voting process.
The Senate voted 26-4 in favor of the legislation, which was later approved in the House by an overwhelming vote.
(READ MORE: Kelly takes office as Chattanooga’s mayor Monday with plan for first 100 days)
Democratic Sen. Sara Kyle of Memphis urged the Senate to wait until the litigation is completed before voting on the matter. She noted, “We’re just not educated” on the form of voting.
Generally, ranked choice voting asks those casting a ballot to rank the candidates by order of choice. If no candidate wins a majority of first-place votes, the candidate winning the fewest is eliminated, and remaining candidates are counted based on first-place rankings, or second place rankings from voters whose first choice was eliminated. The cycle continues until one candidate wins a majority. Those rounds of ballot counts eliminate the need for a runoff election.
Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Yarbro of Nashville called on the Senate to give ranked choice voting an opportunity. He pointed out that red states and blue states and red cities and blue cities are embracing the method.
Republicans argued Tennessee should wait and see how it works in other states before taking a risk and tarnishing Tennessee’s voting process.
The House passed Senate Bill 1820 on a 74-19 vote after the sponsor, Rep. Kevin Vaughan, also argued that it is confusing.
“What we’ve heard from constituents is keep things simple, keep it transparent,” said Vaughan, a Collierville Republican.
He pointed to Oakland, California, where 10 recounts were required and 11% of the votes were thrown out.
It was unclear whether the Legislature’s decisions Monday would have any effect on the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs, Erika Sugarmon, John Marek, Samuel Goff, Britney Thornton and Ranked Choice Tennessee filed their complaint Feb. 7 in Davidson County Chancery Court in support of the voting method that enables voters to rank candidates. It is their fourth filing to reverse decisions against instant runoff voting by Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins, a former state representative.
Instant ranked voting “promotes good government, and less ideologically fractious candidates need to compete not only for a vote but also for rankings that might not be the first ranking in order to secure victory,” the lawsuit states. “This encourages candidates to communicate with and appeal to a broader swath of voters than they might otherwise.”
(READ MORE: Cooper: Kelly’s idea of shortening runoff period good for candidates, voters)
The group claims instant runoff voting also saves governments and candidates money by eliminating runoff elections if no candidate receives a majority of the votes.
In addition, the group contends the method gives a better opportunity to lesser-known candidates who are not funded as well and might be “dismissed” by voters as “throwing away their vote.” Thus, it could make elections more competitive and increase voter participation, the filing claims.
Memphis voters adopted a charter amendment in 2008 mandating instant runoff voting unless the Shelby County Election Commission determined its machines couldn’t handle that form of voting. In 2017, new Shelby County Administrator of Elections Linda Phillips announced instant runoff voting could be done on the county’s existing voting machines and planned to use it in the 2019 Memphis City Council election.
But Goins, “apparently alarmed by Shelby County’s attempts to implement the will of its citizens,” informed Phillips in 2017 that instant runoff voting was illegal and could not be done in Tennessee “based on strained readings and invented limitations” in Tennessee counties, according to the filing.
“Thus began this multiyear saga whereby [Goins] has attempted to thwart all attempts at judicial review of his arbitrary and capricious decision to deny Tennessee citizens their preferred method of election tabulation,” the lawsuit states. “But the coordinator has run out of excuses and delay tactics.”
(READ MORE: How did Hamilton County redistricting change the political map?)
The plaintiffs ask the court to review Goins’ final order and reverse it as “arbitrary and capricious.”
The Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections, did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
Read more at TennesseeLookout.com.