H.R.2561 - One Vote One Choice Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.2561, the "One Vote One Choice Act," aims to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to prohibit states from using ranked-choice voting (RCV) in federal elections. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 1, 2025, and referred to the Committee on House Administration.
The bill specifically targets Section 305 of HAVA, inserting a clause that explicitly forbids states from conducting federal elections using ranked-choice voting systems. It also includes conforming amendments to ensure enforcement and update the Act's table of contents.
The effective date of the amendments would apply to elections held on or after the enactment of the Act.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would prevent states from implementing or continuing to use ranked-choice voting in elections for federal offices, such as President, Senator, and Representative. States currently using RCV for federal elections would need to revert to traditional voting methods.
This could lead to increased costs for states needing to change their election systems. It may also impact voter turnout and satisfaction in states where RCV is popular.
Potential Benefits
- Simplification of Elections: May make elections easier to understand for voters unfamiliar with ranked-choice voting.
- Potential for Reduced Confusion: Could reduce voter errors or invalidated ballots due to misunderstanding the ranking process.
- Reinforcement of Traditional Voting Methods: Upholds the traditional "one person, one vote" concept.
- Increased Certainty of Election Outcomes: May provide more immediate and decisive election results compared to RCV's potentially lengthy tabulation process.
- Prevention of Unintended Consequences: Aims to prevent unforeseen issues that might arise from using RCV in federal elections.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Voter Choice: Eliminates a voting system that some voters prefer for expressing their preferences among multiple candidates.
- Potential for Lower Voter Turnout: Could discourage voters who support ranked-choice voting and feel disenfranchised by its removal.
- Increased Strategic Voting: May encourage voters to vote for only the perceived frontrunners, rather than their true preference, to avoid "wasting" their vote.
- Suppression of Third-Party Candidates: Could make it more difficult for third-party or independent candidates to gain traction, as voters may be less willing to rank them.
- Conflict with State Autonomy: May infringe upon states' rights to determine their own election procedures.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality hinges on the balance between Congress's power to regulate federal elections (Article I, Section 4) and the states' rights to manage their own elections. While Congress has broad authority over federal elections, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, potentially including the administration of elections.
Arguments for constitutionality might cite the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8), allowing Congress to enact laws needed to ensure fair and consistent federal elections. Arguments against might emphasize the principle of federalism and the states' historical role in administering elections.
The bill does not appear to infringe upon individual rights explicitly protected by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech or the right to vote (Amendments I and XV).
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).