<h2>At a glance</h2> <p>Michigan House Bill 4707 proposes to ban the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in elections conducted by the state, cities, and townships. The measure passed the House of Representatives on August 20, 2025, and was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Elections and Ethics. If enacted, the bill would override any local charters or ordinances that currently permit or may in the future authorize RCV, declaring such local laws void and unenforceable.</p> <p>The legislation defines ranked choice voting broadly, covering systems where voters rank candidates by preference and ballots are tabulated in multiple rounds, as well as methods that allow voters to select more candidates than there are positions to fill. This move centralizes election procedure standards at the state level, removing the ability of local jurisdictions to experiment with alternative voting methods.</p> <h2>What the bill would do</h2> <p>House Bill 4707 amends the Michigan Election Law (1954 PA 116) by adding a new section, 642e. The primary function of this addition is to prohibit the state, cities, and townships from conducting any election using ranked choice voting [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a>].</p> <p>The bill explicitly addresses local authority by stating that cities and townships cannot enact or enforce any law or ordinance that authorizes the use of ranked choice voting. Any existing or future local law that violates this prohibition would be considered void and unenforceable [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a>]. This provision ensures that state law supersedes local home rule provisions regarding voting methods.</p> <p>To clarify what is being banned, the bill provides a statutory definition of "ranked choice voting." It defines the term as a method of voting that allows a voter to rank candidates for an office in order of preference, where ballots are tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of candidates until a single winner is declared. Additionally, the definition 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>].</p> <h2>Why supporters may favor it</h2> <p>Supporters of the bill may argue that prohibiting ranked choice voting ensures uniformity in election procedures across Michigan. By preventing local jurisdictions from adopting different voting systems, the state can maintain a consistent standard for how elections are conducted and counted. This uniformity may simplify administration for county clerks and election officials who operate under state guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, sponsors may view the prohibition as a way to preserve the traditional "one person, one vote" standard. In some ranked choice systems, votes are transferred or re-tabulated after initial counts, which some critics argue complicates the direct link between a voter’s ballot and the final outcome. By banning these methods, supporters may believe they are protecting the simplicity and transparency of the electoral process.</p> <p>There may also be concerns about voter confusion. Supporters might argue that complex ballot instructions associated with ranking multiple candidates could lead to errors or disenfranchisement, particularly for voters who are unfamiliar with the system. Prohibiting RCV would ensure that all voters use a familiar format where they select a single candidate for each position.</p> <h2>Why critics may object</h2> <p>Critics of the bill may argue that it restricts local home rule authority. Cities and townships in Michigan often have charters that allow them to manage their own affairs, including certain aspects of local elections. By voiding local ordinances that authorize RCV, the state would be overriding decisions made by local communities to reflect their specific preferences for electoral reform.</p> <p>Opponents may also contend that prohibiting ranked choice voting eliminates a method that can encourage broader consensus among candidates. In RCV systems, candidates often need to appeal to a wider range of voters to secure second- or third-choice rankings, which some argue reduces negative campaigning. Critics might say that banning this method limits the tools available to communities seeking to improve civic engagement and representation.</p> <p>Furthermore, the broad definition of ranked choice voting in the bill could raise concerns. By including any method that allows voters to select more candidates than there are positions to fill, the bill might inadvertently capture other multi-winner or proportional representation systems that localities might wish to explore. Critics could argue that this limits innovation in local governance and prevents communities from experimenting with systems that might better reflect their diverse populations.</p> <h2>Who may be affected</h2> <p>The most directly affected groups would be cities and townships in Michigan that have already adopted or were considering adopting ranked choice voting. Any local ordinances currently in place that authorize RCV would become void and unenforceable if the bill becomes law. This could require these localities to revert to traditional plurality or majority voting systems for future elections.</p> <p>Election officials at the local level would also be impacted, as they would need to adjust their ballot designs, voting equipment, and tabulation processes to comply with the state prohibition. Voters in these jurisdictions would no longer have the option to rank candidates, returning to the standard method of selecting one candidate per office.</p> <p>While the supplied record does not detail specific fiscal impacts, local governments that have invested in RCV infrastructure or planning may face costs associated with reversing those preparations. Conversely, the state may avoid potential complexities associated with overseeing a patchwork of different voting systems across various jurisdictions.</p> <h2>What the vote record shows</h2> <p>House Bill 4707 passed the Michigan House of Representatives on August 20, 2025. The roll call vote recorded 57 yeas and 44 nays, with 9 members not voting [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/HB4707/id/1600071">House Roll Call #177</a>]. The bill was given immediate effect, indicating that the House majority viewed the measure as urgent.</p> <p>Prior to the full House vote, the bill was reported out of the Committee on Election Integrity with a recommendation of passage without amendment. The committee vote was 6 yeas to 3 nays [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/HB4707/id/1599712">Committee Roll Call</a>]. All sponsors of the bill are members of the Republican party, reflecting the party's majority status in the House during this legislative session.</p> <h2>What happens next</h2> <p>After passing the House, House Bill 4707 was transmitted to the Senate. On August 26, 2025, the Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Elections and Ethics [<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/HB4707/2025">LegiScan History</a>]. The bill must now be considered by this Senate committee. If the committee recommends passage, the bill will proceed to the full Senate for debate and a vote.</p> <p>If the Senate passes the bill in the same form as the House, it will be sent to the Governor for signature. If the Governor signs the bill, it will become law and take effect immediately, given the immediate effect clause approved by the House. If the Senate amends the bill, it would need to return to the House for concurrence before proceeding to the Governor. For more context on how bills move through the legislature, readers can explore the <a href="/blog/michigan/">Power the People Michigan civic reporting library</a>.</p> <p>The outcome of this legislation will determine whether Michigan maintains a uniform standard for voting methods or allows local jurisdictions to continue experimenting with ranked choice voting. As the bill moves through the Senate, stakeholders on both sides will likely continue to advocate for their positions regarding local control and election integrity.</p> <h2>Sources</h2> <ul> <li><a href="https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-4707">Official Bill Page: HB 4707</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/HB4707/2025">LegiScan Record: HB 4707</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/text/HB4707/id/3265820">Engrossed Bill Text</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/HB4707/id/1600071">House Roll Call #177 (Third Reading)</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/HB4707/id/1599712">Committee on Election Integrity Roll Call</a></li> <li><a href="https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/House/pdf/2025-HLA-4707-QFL86D27.pdf">House Fiscal Note: Summary as Introduced</a></li> <li><a href="https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/House/pdf/2025-HLA-4707-6QK4JRXD.pdf">House Fiscal Note: Summary as Reported</a></li> </ul>

Keep exploring Michigan civic power

Explore current Michigan voter initiatives and community proposals. Browse the complete Michigan civic reporting library.

Related Michigan reading

Sources