H.R.3040 - Preventing Ranked Choice Corruption Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 3040, the "Preventing Ranked Choice Corruption Act," seeks to prohibit the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in federal elections. Introduced in the House of Representatives, the bill amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to explicitly forbid states from using RCV systems for federal offices. The Act aims to take effect for elections held in 2026 and subsequent years.
The bill is sponsored by Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona and Mr. Begich. It was referred to the Committee on House Administration.
This bill reflects concerns about the integrity and potential for corruption associated with ranked choice voting systems in federal elections.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 3040 would prevent states from implementing or continuing the use of ranked choice voting in elections for federal offices. This would maintain the traditional plurality voting system in federal elections.
States that have already adopted RCV for federal elections would need to revert to alternative voting methods. The impact would primarily be on election administration and voter experience in states considering or using RCV.
Potential Benefits
- Potential for Simplified Elections: Eliminating RCV could simplify the voting process for some voters who find it confusing.
- Reduced Administrative Burden: States might experience reduced administrative complexity and costs associated with implementing and managing RCV systems.
- Greater Transparency: Supporters argue that traditional voting methods are more transparent and easier to understand for the general public.
- Prevention of Unintended Consequences: Proponents believe that banning RCV could prevent unintended consequences or manipulation of election outcomes.
- Upholding Traditional Voting Systems: The bill reinforces traditional voting systems, which some believe are more reliable and less prone to errors.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Voter Choice: Banning RCV could limit voter choice and the ability to express preferences beyond a single candidate.
- Suppression of Third-Party Candidates: RCV is sometimes seen as beneficial for third-party candidates, and its prohibition could hinder their chances.
- Potential for Wasted Votes: Without RCV, voters may feel their votes are wasted if their preferred candidate has little chance of winning.
- Decreased Representation: Some argue that RCV leads to more representative outcomes, and its removal could lead to less representative results.
- Voter Disenfranchisement: Voters who prefer RCV may feel disenfranchised by its prohibition.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality hinges on the balance between federal power over elections and states' rights to administer elections. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution grants states the power to prescribe the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives," but Congress may "at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."
The Supreme Court has generally upheld federal laws regulating elections when they are reasonably related to legitimate federal interests, such as ensuring fair and accurate elections. The constitutionality of H.R. 3040 would likely be challenged based on arguments about federal overreach into state election administration.
There is no explicit constitutional provision that directly addresses or prohibits ranked choice voting. Therefore, the alignment is neutral.
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).