Friday, April 11^th, 2025

Better Ballot NC opposes House Bill 825 titled "Election improvements" and sponsored by Rep. Brian Echevarria and six other House members. We strongly oppose the bill's arbitrary and blanket ban on ranked choice voting, along with other provisions that seem aimed at making voting more difficult.

Dozens of U.S. localities, from different sides of the political spectrum, have adopted ranked choice voting for municipal and county elections. Voters in Maine and Alaska approved RCV for use in statewide elections. The system affords greater ability for voters to elect their preferred candidates and candidates to show broader support. Because candidates appeal for next-choice votes from other candidates' supporters, ranked choice voting reduces polarization and encourages greater cooperation among elected leaders.

Early voting has played a critical role in North Carolina since first adopted for the 2000 presidential election. House Bill 825 would reduce that by a full week. Early voting enables voters to navigate around demanding work schedules, while reducing wait times and staffing pressures at polling places. It promotes increased voter turnout, with 4.2 million casting early ballots in 2024. When absentee ballots are included, that represents 57% of the state's registered voters.

One of House Bill 825's provisions seems borrowed from a judicial candidate's lawsuit to overturn his election loss by disqualifying over 65,000 ballots. It would elevate documentation of a voter's last four Social Security digits from optional to a requirement to vote in person or to obtain an absentee ballot, if the voter can't provide a photo ID.

North Carolina should embrace alternatives like ranked choice voting that better reflect the voters' will. Opponents have not offered any rationale for denying our state's voters an opportunity to consider an alternate system. A variation of ranked choice voting is already filed as part of House Bill 541 (an alternative proposal) and would address a burdensome problem for taxpayers and voters.

Last year, two statewide runoffs cost taxpayers an estimated $10 million to $20 million and had less than 3% turnout. Rather than sending voters back to the polls in costly, low-turnout second primaries, House Bill 541 would allow political parties to optionally use a "top-2 same-day runoff" if a party determines a multi-candidate primary could trigger a runoff.

The "top-2 runoff" proposal is modeled on the successful "instant runoff" election for State Court of Appeals in 2010. Voters can rank three candidates in order of preference. After an initial tabulation, the two candidates with the most 1st-preference votes advance to a "runoff." All other candidates are eliminated. Then ballots from the eliminated candidates are tabulated, and 2nd- and 3rd-preference votes for either of the runoff candidates are added to their totals. The candidate with the most total votes wins.

Former Speaker Tim Moore said after last year's runoffs: “Certainly having a second primary where the turnout is anemic is not a good way to do it . . . Maybe somebody will come up with a good suggestion.” If our elected representatives are serious about saving taxpayers unnecessary expense and sparing voters from anemic-turnout second primaries, they should embrace HB 541 and not try to stifle it with a prohibition lacking substantive rationale.

Lee Mortimer, Vice President, Better Ballot NC

Contact us at [email protected].