Last week, the governor of North Dakota signed into law a ban on the use of ranked-choice voting in state elections.
North Dakota is now the 15th state to disallow the practice, which is used in Alaska elections after a 2020 ballot initiative passed with the backing of tens of millions of dollars in outside dark money.
“Now more than ever, we need a consistent, efficient and easy-to-understand voter experience across our entire state to maintain trust in our election system,” Gov. Kelly Armstrong said. “This is one more in a series of proactive, common-sense steps our Secretary of State and Legislature have taken to support election integrity.”
As a second attempt at repealing ranked-choice voting is under way in Alaska, here are the 15 states that have banned the novel voting system that was created by liberals to help Sen. Lisa Murkowski keep her seat in the Senate:
- Alabama
- Florida
- Idaho
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- North Dakota
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming are the latest additions, with their bans signed into law this year. Only three states — Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine — use ranked choice voting, as does the District of Columbia.
In Alaska, the petition to repeal RCV and jungle primaries was certified on Feb. 17, allowing sponsors one year to collect over 34,000 signatures for a 2026 ballot measure. To get on the 2026 primary ballot or general election ballot depends on when the Legislature adjourns in 2026.
To get onto the 2028 ballot, the group has until the first week of March, 2026 to turn in the needed signatures.
The new Alaska effort, Repeal Now, follows the narrow defeat of the first repeal effort in November, which lost by just 743 votes, despite millions of dollars in dark money from liberal entities outside the state fighting to convince Alaskans that ranked-choice voting gives them better results.
The two main political parties in Alaska are split on the voting method, with the Alaska Democratic Party supporting it and the Alaska Republican Party opposed.
What’s to lose??? Take another run makes perfect sense. Unless Murkowski chooses not to run again,requiring this outfit to spend millions again has lost any real purpose. Meaning it should pass easily.
If Murkowski decides too run I’d say the expenses of both sides of the issue will repeat the involvement.
Watching the millions of cost to these outsiders will be pleasurable🍷🍷👍
those are all traditional fly over states. suck more federal money in than send to DC. low test scores, terrible health outcomes, educational levels are ridiculous. capital flows everywhere but there
those are traditional “low cost retirement” areas, no thank you
im staying here, with my millions
Your arrogant elitism is very clearly showing here, No Reason.
Why not condemn the voters of all those states that have prohibited rank choice voting as “a basket of deplorables” and “bitter clingers” while you’re at it?
It should receive a Federal ban for all Federal elections in all 50 States. a uniform standard One Citizen One Vote.
Alaska will never make that list. But we will continue to complain about it.
“t/the novel voting system that was created by liberals to help Sen. Lisa Murkowski keep her seat in the Senate”. That is A LIE! RCV has existed for a long time, well before it was adopted in Alaska. Are you proud of publishing lies? Does it earn you a MAGA merit badge?
Novel for Alaska is pretty accurate. Pick your battles.
Ah, another defender of the Uniparty and its creatures like Princess Lisa!
You are disingenuously picking at nits here, Mark. It is obvious and incontrovertible that rank choice voting was brought into Alaska by leftists and establishment shills (even if not technically ‘created’ here) to save the political hide of our dear Queen of Nepotism and Globalism, as she was clearly NEVER going to again win a Republican Party primary.
I have noticed that it is a characteristic trait of you disingenuous and duplicitous defenders of everything status-quo and pro-establishment to attack those with whom you disagree (such as, for example, defenders of freedom and liberty) by singling out and attempting to discredit word choices, side matters and minutia, rather than directly confronting the gist of your opponents’ arguments. Just as you did here.
It’s embarrassing that Alaska voters are so uninformed.
I take it you’ve seen national IQ levels, local school testing. politicians find voters a nuisance, pesky questions about dark money. alaska gerrymandering a la 2010 started this outcome
vote for the best, fire the rest
It sounds good on the surface, but allowing a state government to restrict the voting system choices of their citizens is a bad idea. If they can disallow that choice, then they can more easily disallow others. Be careful what you wish for.
Anchor Point says: “… allowing a state government to restrict the voting system choices of their citizens is a bad idea.”
How so? State governments have long restricted voting choices of citizens. First of all, you have to be a citizen. Second of all, you have to live in or be associated with the state, legislative or assembly district, precinct, city, etc. Third, you have to vote on or by a specified date. There are other restrictions, but you get the idea.
Perhaps you are grumpy with the notion that members of political parties have the first amendment right to select candidates of that party. Last I checked, freedom of association hasn’t been repealed, though the Alaska Supreme Court and the Scott Kendalls of the world are giving it a good college try in their support of RCV. Your rights end where they start interfering with my rights, a basic lesson you guys seem to have forgotten.
Note that the previous voting system had allowances for those who refuse to be members of political parties. Those folks got to vote in every single election. Doesn’t matter what you declare you are. It matters that you declare, a nuance (and fact) roundly ignored by Your Side of the argument. Cheers –
Thanks for the reply, but I think you might be making some incorrect assumptions. I did not mean to sound pro-RCV (I am not). I only wanted to defend the right of citizens to select the voting system of their choice. I don’t believe it is right for the government to restrict that choice, and the oftener that sort of thing is done, the more normal it will seem. I think that is dangerous.
Then i misread a bit. Thanks for the clarification, and if necessary apologies.
Still, given that your concern is about the ability to select voting systems, we are once again back to the question of where and how you draw that line? There are a lot more awful ways to construct voting systems than there are to construct good ones.
How do you limit bad choices, which in turn destroy trust in the outcome of elections? The 2020 National Election, ANC Muni elections, and RCV at the state level are all good examples of things to do to destroy that trust. Why were they adopted? To elect democrats.
If you want to maximize trust in elections I think you need to maximize the following:
– Same day voting
– Same day results
– Transparency
– Auditiability
Minimize anything or everything on that list, and you end up with a result nobody trusts or believes because you make it easier to diddle the process under the cover of darkness.
A few thoughts for your consideration. Cheers –
Good points to consider. Thanks for the civil exchange, which seems to be sadly uncommon these days.
Lisa and Mary P are glaring examples of why Alaska needs to be rid of RCV.
It “passed” by a razor-thin margin with literally millions upon millions in outside money, and god knows how many votes from dead people or people who actually live somewhere else. If we banned outside money, it wouldn’t have passed. It wouldn’t have been on the ballot to begin with. The democrats know they couldn’t win an honest, straightforward election. It’s why they always fight so hard to keep some kind of a cheating mechanism in place.