Ohio did not just debate ranked choice voting. On March 17, 2026, Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 63, which generally prohibits ranked choice voting and authorizes withholding Local Government Fund distributions from a municipality or chartered county that uses it. State leaders acted before any Ohio locality had actually implemented ranked choice voting. This was not a response to a proven failure. This was a move to stop local communities from trying something new in the first place.
Home rule exists for a reason. Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution says municipalities have authority to exercise “all powers of local self-government.” That principle is supposed to mean something. Local communities should be allowed to govern local questions unless the state has a compelling reason to step in. A city deciding how to structure its own local elections fits the spirit of self-government far better than one more order handed down from Columbus.
Senate Bill 63 goes beyond a normal policy disagreement. The law does not merely reject ranked choice voting for statewide contests. It uses money as a weapon against local governments that choose a different path. The bill explicitly ties ranked choice voting to the loss of Local Government Fund distributions. That is not persuasion. That is coercion. A state that threatens cities and chartered counties with financial punishment for local experimentation is not defending democracy. It is narrowing it.
Supporters of the ban can argue that ranked choice voting is confusing, unnecessary, or bad policy. Fine. Let them make that case in public. Let them persuade city councils, charter commissions, and local voters. A legislature confident in its own argument does not need to outlaw experimentation before it begins. It does not need to tell every community in Ohio that local voters cannot even test an alternative.
This is why the ranked choice voting ban matters even to people who do not like ranked choice voting. The deeper issue is who decides. Senate Bill 63 sends a clear message that local control lasts only until the General Assembly dislikes the choice. That is the real pattern here. Ohio’s local governments are trusted to solve problems, raise revenue, and answer to voters, but not trusted to innovate. That is not respect for home rule. That is an ongoing assault on it.
