How does House Bill 4707 define 'ranked choice voting' beyond just ranking candidates by preference?
Short answer
House Bill 4707 defines ranked choice voting in two parts. First, it covers systems where voters rank candidates by preference and ballots are counted in multiple rounds until one winner remains. Second, it includes any method that allows a voter to select more candidates than the number of positions available to be filled in an election [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a>].
What the bill or law says
The legislation amends the Michigan Election Law by adding section 642e. This new section provides a specific statutory definition for "ranked choice voting." The text states that the term means a method of voting that allows a voter to rank candidates for an office in order of preference. In these systems, ballots are tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of candidates until a single winner is declared [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a>].
Crucially, the definition extends beyond simple ranking. It explicitly includes any other method of voting that allows voters to vote for more candidates for an office than the total number of positions to be filled for that office at an election [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a>]. This language ensures that various alternative voting structures fall under the prohibition if they permit selecting multiple candidates for a limited number of seats.
How it works in practice
By using this broad definition, the bill prevents cities and townships from using or authorizing these voting methods. Any local charter provision or ordinance that currently permits ranked choice voting, or any future law that attempts to authorize it, would be considered void and unenforceable [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a>].
This centralizes election procedure standards at the state level. Local jurisdictions cannot experiment with alternative voting methods that fit the statutory definition, such as systems involving vote transfers or multi-winner selections where voters pick more candidates than available spots. Election officials in affected areas would need to ensure their ballot designs and tabulation processes comply with this state-level ban [<a href="https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-4707">Official Bill Page: HB 4707</a>].
What the source does not answer
The provided legislative text and records do not list specific examples of voting systems that might be inadvertently captured by the second part of the definition, such as certain forms of proportional representation. The sources also do not detail the technical specifications for how election equipment vendors must adjust their software to exclude these methods. Additionally, the documents do not provide a fiscal estimate of the costs local governments might incur to revert to traditional voting systems if they had already invested in ranked choice infrastructure.