House Bill 728, sponsored by state Rep. Emily Kinkead (D-Allegheny County), would have helped ensure all eligible inmates receive basic identification documents before release. On Sept. 22, the House Judiciary Committee advanced the bill by a 14-12 party-line vote. The next day, the same committee laid it on the table, which effectively shelved the measure. The House passed similar legislation in March 2024 (House Bill 1601) by an also-split vote (102-99), only for it to stall in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), 64.7% of people released from the state’s prisons are rearrested within three years. Research consistently identifies employment as among the strongest predictors of reoffending, with unemployed individuals 1.5 times more likely to return to prison than those who are employed. Yet formerly incarcerated people face unemployment rates exceeding 27%—higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate has ever reached, including during the Great Depression.

Before a person can apply for a job, rent an apartment, or even open a bank account, the person needs access to basic identification documents such as a photo ID, birth certificate, or Social Security card. Pennsylvania charges approximately $40 for a photo ID or driver’s license and $20-30 for a birth certificate. The process of acquiring a state-issued photo ID is often complicated by red tape, requiring documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card, which can be difficult to obtain without an ID in the first place.

HB 728 would establish an “Identification Upon Reentry Program” requiring the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to coordinate with the Department of Health, Department of Transportation, Social Security Administration, and other agencies to ensure all returning citizens obtain photo IDs, driver’s licenses, birth certificates, Social Security cards, and proof of naturalization.

DOC already has a program to assist inmates with obtaining identification documents, funded through the Inmate General Welfare Fund, which generates revenue from commissary sales, hobby craft functions, and private donations. DOC policy allows these funds to cover birth certificate costs for indigent inmates preparing for release within 12 months. HB 728 would strengthen the existing program by providing clear legislative direction and statutory authority for DOC and other agencies to coordinate on implementation and would expand coverage for document fees beyond indigent individuals to all returning citizens.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Kauffman (R-Adams) raised the primary objection to HB 728 during the bill’s hearing, citing fairness to Pennsylvania taxpayers:

I have constituents who walk in my office on a daily basis of extraordinarily modest means. … They’re having trouble getting their birth certificate, paying for their driver’s license, their vehicle registration. You just go down the list of the services that we offer that they can barely afford. And now we are going to place into law the requirement that those same people who cannot afford it for themselves are now going to pay for it for someone who is getting out of incarceration.

This concern resonates with many voters facing real economic pressures. They’re right to expect government to spend tax dollars wisely, and assisting people being released from prison with reintegration more than pays off when people can get jobs and housing with these documents, and be less likely to commit new crimes.

Meanwhile, the cost of the program would likely be minimal. Pennsylvania released approximately 11,396 people from state prisons in 2023. There is no official fiscal analysis of HB 728 available, but even assuming every person needed a $40 photo ID and $30 birth certificate, the total cost would be under $800,000 annually—less than 0.03% of the $3.3 billion Pennsylvania DOC requested for fiscal year 2024-25. Much of this cost could continue to be covered by the existing Inmate General Welfare Fund, which currently covers document fees for indigent individuals, though the extent of the coverage under the expanded program would depend on how many returning citizens qualify as indigent versus non-indigent under DOC policy.

Second, people in state custody face unique constraints that the government itself has imposed. Pennsylvania prison work programs pay between 19 cents and 51 cents per hour, meaning a $20-$30 birth certificate represents 40 to 160 hours of prison labor. As state Rep. Chris Rabb (D-Philadelphia) explained during the hearing:

If they’re making 19 cents an hour on the inside and they’re paying restitution, and they’re doing all those things… That’s a very different context than folks who may have struggles paying various fees, but do not have the same structural barriers that we as the state legislature have created.

Successful reentry also ultimately saves Pennsylvania taxpayers money. According to the Pennsylvania DOC’s 2022 Recidivism Report, recidivism costs the state approximately $3.11 billion annually in total societal costs. With nearly two-thirds of released individuals rearrested within three years, even modest improvements in reentry success could generate meaningful savings. The federal Department of Justice specifically identifies that “access to government-issued identification documents is critical to successful reentry.” When people cannot access legal employment because they lack basic identification, the risk of reoffending increases, which makes the cost of obtaining the IDs a solid investment.

The partisan divide in Pennsylvania stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan consensus emerging nationally. At least 27 states have adopted laws directing corrections agencies to provide or assist individuals with obtaining state-issued photo identification cards prior to release from prison, including red or red-leaning states like Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

In March, Georgia’s legislature unanimously passed legislation requiring the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to coordinate with the Department of Driver Services to help individuals obtain a state-issued photo ID prior to release. The law also requires GDC to provide individuals with other documents to support post-release employment, including a vocational training record, institutional work record, certified copy of their birth certificate, and a Social Security card, if obtainable. Virginia adopted similar reforms in April with nearly unanimous support in both chambers of the General Assembly. While states vary as to whether they cover document fees, there is broad national consensus that corrections agencies should actively help people obtain identification before release.

Nearly everyone in Pennsylvania’s prisons will eventually return to their communities. The question is whether they return with or without the basic tools necessary to succeed. A plurality of states led by both Republican and Democratic legislatures have already answered this question, recognizing that helping people reenter society successfully is both more humane and more cost-efficient than maintaining barriers to employment and stability. Pennsylvania should join them by codifying its identification assistance program and expanding it beyond indigent inmates to serve all returning citizens.

The post Pennsylvania stalls on prison ID reform where other states found bipartisan consensus appeared first on Reason Foundation.

There is a poorly understood criminal justice metric that might just be a key component of fixing a faltering system that has gotten more expensive and, arguably, less effective at protecting public safety over decades. Clearance rates are the closest metric we have to evaluating how well the criminal justice system does at catching people who commit crimes. Clearance rates measure the percentage of reported crimes that result in a suspect being arrested, in an attempt to approximate the effectiveness of police agencies at that critical job. This brief is particularly interested in how effective the police are at solving violent crimes, a top concern of the public.

The effectiveness of the U.S. criminal enforcement system in solving violent crimes—as reflected by clearance rates—has been flat with a slightly downward trend over time. When focusing just on homicides, those rates have suffered a decades-long slide since the mid-1960s, with an even more pronounced decline in the years since 2019. Even as crime rates have trended down fairly consistently since 1993, and even though police spending has dramatically increased, not declined, since 1982, the percentage of violent crimes reported that get “cleared” (solved) has been stagnant at best since about the mid-1960s.

To put a finer point on the increased spending on police, the Urban Institute concluded from analyzing census data that “[f]rom 1977 to 2021, in 2021 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending on police increased from $47 billion to $135 billion, an increase of 189%.” In addition, a study by ABC-owned television stations examining budgets of more than 100 cities and counties determined that 83% spent at least 2% more on police in 2022 than they spent in 2019.

Early indications suggest that some of the steeper declines in clearance rates that were experienced after 2019 bounced back somewhat in 2023 and 2024, but there is no conclusive data yet, and the long-term trend since the 1980s remains in place. The chaos of the pandemic years likely plays an outsize role in the data for those years so, looking back in hindsight, the accelerated decline in rates may prove those years to be outliers. Even so, the long-term trends demonstrate that vast improvement can be had in clearance rates across the criminal system.

In the mid-1960s, more than 90% of murders were solved nationally (Figure 1). By 1990, that percentage had dropped into the 60s. In 2022, only 37% of violent crimes were cleared, and just over half of murders, according to FBI data. These are historic lows for a statistic that has been collected using the same methodology since at least 1960. Meanwhile, peer nations in Western Europe and Asia reportedly performed as well as the U.S. did in the 1960s, and their numbers have remained much higher than the figures for the U.S. Note that though clearance rates for property crimes and lower-level offenses are typically much worse than those for violent crimes, they have also remained more stable over time (Figure 2). As an example, in 2022, 36.7% of violent crimes reported to police were cleared, compared with 12.1% of property crimes.

When violent crimes are not prosecuted, or perpetrators don’t face punishment, it harms public safety and causes fear in the community; if left unchecked, this can lead to rampant disrespect for the law and eventually produce chaos. The perpetrator remains unidentified and loose in the community, able to commit further crimes.

Allowing cases to languish unsolved has additional implications for deterrence. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.” So even as our prisons and jails are bursting with people being confined for ever-longer time periods, there is evidence that our policy choices are not yielding effective deterrence, let alone crafted to achieve optimal results. Indeed, the evidence is well-established that long sentences are not the only or even best way to address crime. When roughly half of murderers can expect to get away with it, the deterrent effect of amping penalties without increasing the likelihood of being caught will be limited. With property crime, those incentives are even worse since those are less likely to be cleared.

Failing to solve cases is also a severe disservice to victims, who are rarely healed or compensated by our present system. In fact, surveys show that victims of violent crime prefer prevention strategies to long prison sentences.

So why aren’t clearance rates the most important criminal justice metric we have? Why have many members of the public not even heard of them? This brief will discuss clearance rates, their merits, and their decades-long downward trajectory. Why do clearance rates matter? How can the abysmal rates seen today be improved? Can public awareness of this crisis lead to action? What are the solutions?

Download the full policy brief below:

The post Could clearance rates be key to addressing criminal justice failures? appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Earlier this month, Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., deploying National Guard troops and placing the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal oversight. One of his executive orders attempts to build on that federal takeover by directing law enforcement to “work to ensure that arrestees in the District of Columbia are held in Federal custody to the fullest extent permissible under applicable law, and…pursue Federal charges and pretrial detention for such arrestees whenever possible…”

Prior to this order, suspects arrested by federal agencies were placed in federal custody, while those arrested by MPD were held locally. Trump’s order also threatens D.C.’s access to federal funding, services, and approvals unless the city changes its policies on pretrial detention.

A second executive order similarly threatens to withhold federal funding from states and local jurisdictions that Attorney General Pam Bondi determines to have “in the Attorney General’s opinion, substantially eliminated cash bail as a potential condition of pretrial release from custody for crimes that pose a clear threat to public safety and order, including offenses involving violent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism.”

These measures strike at the heart of a fundamental principle of the U.S. justice system: individuals accused of crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty. While defendants charged with serious violent offenses or posing genuine threats may be detained pending trial, most are legally entitled to pretrial release. Courts can and do impose conditions on a defendant’s release, such as electronic monitoring or supervision through a pretrial services agency.

Monetary release conditions, commonly referred to as “cash bail,” are among the most common types of pretrial release conditions in the United States. Cash bail allows defendants to post an amount of money with the court as collateral. If they return for all hearings, the money is refunded. If they fail to appear, the funds are forfeited, and additional penalties may follow.

Historically, the purpose of cash bail was to ensure court appearances. But reforms in the 1970s and 1980s expanded judicial discretion to consider public safety, enabling judges to set high bail amounts to detain certain defendants.

While bail can be appropriate in some cases, its application often punishes poverty rather than crime. Many defendants are unable to afford the cost of bail and are consequently detained for no reason other than their inability to pay.

Research suggests that bail decisions can reduce employment, coerce defendants into accepting plea bargains, and increase the probability that defendants are convicted. Recognizing these harms, criminal justice reformers have advocated limiting or replacing cash bail with non-monetary conditions.

Washington, D.C., was the first jurisdiction to substantially replace cash bail with a risk-based system in the 1990s. Since then, many other jurisdictions have experimented with reforms. Most continue to allow cash bail in some cases, but in 2022, Illinois became the first state to fully abolish it.

The evidence on bail reform contradicts Trump’s rationale for his executive orders. Last year, Reason Foundation published a report reviewing recent studies on cash bail. The report concluded that the bulk of available evidence suggests that curtailing the use of monetary release conditions among low-risk defendants does not cause increases in failures to appear or new pretrial crimes. There is even some evidence that pretrial reforms that reduce detention among low-risk, bond-eligible defendants may improve public safety. At the same time, the report noted that rigorous evaluations of completely cashless systems, such as those in D.C. and Illinois, were still limited.

Since then, new evidence from Illinois has strengthened the case for bail reform. A recent evaluation by Loyola University’s Center for Criminal Justice found that Illinois’ abolition of cash bail has largely achieved its goals of reducing unnecessary pretrial detention without undermining public safety. Crime rates in Chicago have actually declined since the reform, undermining claims that cashless systems fuel lawlessness.

Taken together, these findings reveal that the Trump administration’s actions are not grounded in evidence. By attempting to punish cities and states that have embraced reform, the executive orders disregard the presumption of innocence and risk reviving a system that detains people for the simple offense of being poor. Targeted and carefully designed bail reform can both protect public safety and uphold constitutional values. The administration’s crackdown is neither.

The post President Trump’s executive orders threaten cities and states that allow cashless bail appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In a free and safe society, law enforcement is essential for maintaining the rule of law and protecting people and property from harm by others. At the same time, law enforcement officers have a tremendous responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of the citizens with whom they interact. Even a few “bad apples” can undermine public trust in law enforcement––especially when governments fail to hold these officers accountable for misconduct. Michigan must embrace transparency and accountability in law enforcement to demonstrate a commitment to upholding the rule of law and maintaining the public’s confidence in the justice system. 

The legislation presented in the bipartisan Police Practices Standardization, Transparency, and Trust (S.T.A.T.) package would limit the use of no-knock warrants, require de-escalation and crisis response training, and provide other safeguards to protect the public and law enforcement officers. 

Use of force standards, de-escalation and crisis response training, and duty to intervene requirements will ensure that armed officers of the state respect the constitutional rights of Michiganders and provide law enforcement with critical tools to maintain their own safety. Law enforcement officers must be trained to de-escalate tense interactions, but, when necessary, employ “objectively reasonable” physical force. When excessive force is employed, the rule of law requires fellow officers to intervene.  

Restricting the use of no-knock warrants will likewise improve the safety of law enforcement and the public. Search warrants are an essential and uncontroversial law enforcement tool. However, no-knock warrants allow law enforcement to forcibly enter a residence without first announcing their presence or identifying themselves. This practice creates a dangerous situation for everyone involved. A recent report from the American Legislative Exchange Council noted that: 

Between 2010 and 2016, 81 civilians and 13 law enforcement officers were killed in forced-entry searches. Officers represented 10% of fatalities while executing standard “knock-and-announce” search warrants and 20% of fatalities associated with no-knock warrants. 

Increasing transparency also confers mutual benefits to law enforcement and the public. Body-worn cameras shed necessary light on rare instances of police abuse, but they also frequently exonerate officers who are falsely accused of misconduct. The S.T.A.T. package includes reasonable requirements and penalties to protect against tampering with body-worn cameras or resulting video evidence. Additionally, the package includes improvements to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) Act and establishes new standards for separation records. These provisions will empower police chiefs and sheriffs to avoid hiring officers with poor records.  

Finally, the package’s provisions related to false testimony and anonymity of complaints will help ensure truth in accountability and protect the privacy of individuals who file complaints alleging misconduct by law enforcement. A key principle that undergirds the rule of law is that nobody is above the law, including those who are tasked with enforcing the law.  

Taken together, this bipartisan package provides necessary improvements to policing that will promote the transparency, accountability, and trust necessary to foster an environment of safety and order in Michigan communities.  

The post Michigan’s bipartisan legislative package provides necessary improvements to policing appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Senate Bill 147 prepares incarcerated individuals for reentry by ensuring they leave prison with key identification and employment-related documents, such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, vocational training records, work histories, and resumes. 

Successfully reintegrating formerly incarcerated individuals is a critical public safety priority.  Equipping returning citizens with the basic tools for reentry can reduce the likelihood of reoffending, improve public safety, and ease long-term burdens on the state’s courts and correctional system. 

One of the most basic—and often overlooked—barriers to reentry is the lack of valid identification. Before a person can apply for a job, rent housing, or open a bank account, they typically need at least one form of government-issued ID. Yet many people are released from incarceration without one. SB 147 builds upon a 2023 reform that authorized the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to work with the Department of Driver Services (DDS) to provide state ID cards to incarcerated individuals who lack valid identification.  

The new law provides stronger direction to GDC. Now, at the request of an eligible inmate, the GDC must coordinate with the DDS to provide a state-issued identification card. Upon request, GDC will also provide released inmates with: 

• Vocational training and work records, if applicable; 

• A certified birth certificate and Social Security card, if obtainable; 

• A resume detailing any trades learned while incarcerated and the inmate’s proficiency; 

• Documentation of a completed practice job interview; and 

• Notification of any eligibility for state occupational licenses or certifications. 

GDC is not required to provide resumes or practice job interviews to specific categories of inmates who are unlikely to return to the workforce due to age, health, or other circumstances. 

Reason Foundation played an active role in Georgia’s 2023 reforms through educational outreach and technical assistance to lawmakers. Our team of criminal justice policy experts remained closely engaged throughout this year’s legislative process, continuing to provide technical support and facilitate dialogue among key stakeholders. We provide similar outreach and support to policymakers across the country. 

SB 147 passed unanimously in both chambers of the Georgia General Assembly and was supported by a bipartisan coalition of over 30 co-sponsors. State Sen. Michael Rhett (D-33), the primary sponsor of the bill, told Reason Foundation, “Senate Bill 147 is a paradigm shift. It allows returning citizens to equip themselves with the necessary IDs and create a new mosaic for themselves.” 

By addressing practical barriers that often hinder successful reentry—like the lack of identification or documentation of job skills—SB 147 represents a meaningful step toward reducing recidivism and promoting public safety in Georgia. The unanimous support it received in the legislature reflects a growing bipartisan consensus that smart, evidence-based reforms can strengthen communities while also making the criminal justice system more effective and humane. Georgia’s continued reform efforts offer a model for how states can support second chances and ensure that people leaving prison are better positioned to rebuild their lives. 

The post Georgia builds on reforms to provide released inmates with identification documents appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The process of acquiring a state-issued photo ID is often complicated by red tape, requiring documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card, which can be difficult—if not impossible—to obtain without an ID in the first place. As a practical matter, Departments of Corrections (DOC) are well-positioned to verify the identity of inmates in their custody. Therefore, many states, including Virginia, have laws that direct the DOC to help inmates obtain a photo ID card before their release from prison. 

Before HB 2221’s passage, Virginia law directed the DOC to provide inmates with assistance in applying for and obtaining government-issued identification cards, birth certificates, and Social Security cards prior to their release or discharge from prison. According to a 2022 report, the department has a procedure for obtaining necessary documentation and coordinating with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to obtain photo identification, but this process was not codified into statute.   

As Virginia Delegate Rae Cousins (D-79), the sponsor of HB 2221, told the Virginia House Public Safety Committee in January: 

One of the first steps to successful reentry from incarceration is having an ID or driver’s license. From housing to employment, healthcare to mental health support—everything someone needs for a healthy, successful life requires an ID. … [Department of Corrections] data shows that over the month of September last year, 410 inmates were released from Virginia’s prisons and only 178 of them—less than half—were released with a state ID. 

If the department did not already possess or could not “readily obtain” all the necessary records and information, inmates would be provided with a DOC offender identification form. An offender identification form provided by the DOC can be used as proof of Virginia residency to obtain a photo ID from the DMV after release, provided the form contains all the necessary information and that information can be verified. However, state law was silent regarding the content of the offender identification form and provided no direction to the DOC or DMV on how to verify the information on the form.   

HB 2221 more directly requires the DOC to work with the DMV, the State Registrar of Vital Records, and any other relevant agency to provide inmates with a certified copy of their birth certificate, Social Security card, or a government-issued identification card before release. If providing a DMV-issued photo ID is not possible, inmates will still be provided with a DOC-issued offender identification form. The new law specifies what information should be included on the offender identification form and requires the DOC and DMV to establish a procedure for verifying the information so that the form can serve as proof of identity as required to obtain a government-issued identification card for 120 days immediately after release from prison. In short, the new language provides much clearer direction to the DOC and provides a statutory basis for the coordination between the DOC and DMV required for the Offender Identification form to function as intended.  

HB 2221 also directs the DOC, the State Board of Local and Regional Jails, the DMV, and the State Registrar of Vital Records to: 

1. Identify the number of prisoners released with and without identification cards; 

2. Review the processes involved in assisting a prisoner in applying for and obtaining a government-issued identification card, birth certificate, or social security card; 

3. Identify any obstacles that may interfere with a prisoner obtaining such identification or documents prior to such prisoner’s release or discharge; and 

4. Issue a report of findings and recommendations to the General Assembly no later than Nov. 1, 2025. 

Reason Foundation weighed in on the legislative discussion of HB 2221 through educational outreach and technical assistance to state lawmakers and legislative staff. Our team of criminal justice experts offers similar outreach and support to policymakers nationwide.  

Access to identification is an important step for anyone returning to the community after incarceration. By codifying clearer responsibilities among state agencies, HB 2221 represents a meaningful step toward reducing administrative barriers to reentry. These reforms support individual rehabilitation while simultaneously promoting public safety and strengthening the workforce by equipping people with the tools they need to rebuild their lives. Other states seeking to improve reentry outcomes can look to Virginia as a model for reform. 

The post Virginia adopts reforms to provide released prisoners with identification documents appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Song lyrics are improperly being used as evidence against defendants.

• Literal confessions of criminal guilt should not be treated as free speech protected under the First Amendment. However, song lyrics are often not intended to be taken literally, so their admission as evidence should be scrutinized.
• Currently, the admissibility of song lyrics is determined by an unclear and inconsistently applied patchwork of constitutional principles and rules of evidence within a jurisdiction. The current framework is insufficient to guard against undue prejudice.
• Researchers have identified more than 680 cases nationwide where song lyrics have been introduced as evidence since the 1980s. This practice presents a serious affront to the principles of free expression and artistic freedom.

S.B. 661 and H.B. 1389 establish reasonable standards for the admission of artistic expression as evidence in a criminal trial.

• By default, artistic expression would be inadmissible. However, a court could admit evidence of a defendant’s artistic expression if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
  • If the expression is original, the defendant intended a literal meaning. If the expression is derivative (borrowed from someone else), the defendant intended to adopt the statement as their own thought or statement.
  • The expression refers to specific facts of the crime alleged.
  • The expression is relevant to an issue of fact in dispute.
  • The expression has distinct probative value that is not provided by other admissible evidence.
• If artistic expression is admitted as evidence, only the exact part that meets all the above standards could be shown to a jury. Judges would also be required to give the jury clear instructions on how to interpret the evidence and caution them against misusing it.

Bottom line: The state should be required to meet fair standards before using song lyrics or other forms of artistic expression as evidence to deprive a criminal defendant of their life, liberty, or property.

Full Backgrounder: Missouri’s S.B. 661 and H.B. 1389 Would Protect Free Expression and Artistic Freedom

The post Missouri bills would protect free expression and artistic freedom appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorimetric tests are near-ubiquitous in drug enforcement, despite known flaws

• A recent report by the Quattrone Center at the University of Pennsylvania Law School found that approximately 773,000 of the more than 1.5 million drug arrests conducted in the United States each year involve the use of color-based presumptive tests.
• Colorimetric drug tests are notoriously unreliable because they often give false positive results for legal substances. The reliability of tests can be affected by environmental factors, by improper storage and handling, and by improper administration of the tests.
• Research has identified error rates as high as 38% in some contexts.
• Even the manufacturers of presumptive field test kits warn that confirmatory lab testing is necessary.

Colorimetric tests are a leading cause of wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States

• Thousands of Americans are arrested and convicted (overwhelmingly through coercive plea bargaining) for drug possession in cases where presumptive tests were not confirmed by subsequent laboratory testing.
• In a national survey, 89% of prosecutors reported that they accept guilty pleas without laboratory testing to confirm the results of a positive colorimetric field test result.
• An estimated 30,000 people are falsely implicated by colorimetric field drug tests each year. That would make these tests the largest known cause of wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States.

Bottom line: States should examine how useful these tests really are and how to ensure that false positives don’t lead to the arrest or conviction of innocent individuals.

Full Backgrounder: Colorimetric field drug tests are unreliable, lead to wrongful arrests and convictions

The post Colorimetric field drug tests are unreliable, lead to wrongful arrests and convictions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

But victims in this process are often relegated to a secondary position. They often feel disconnected from proceedings and decisions. As the government pursues conviction or resolution, victims’ needs, concerns, and desires can be overshadowed.

A growing trend, however, known as victim-offender dialogue, is showing evidence of addressing many of these needs while at the same time helping prevent recidivism.

Over the past 40 years, states have pursued reforms that establish and protect victims’ rights. Broadly, victims in Florida have constitutional rights “to be informed, to be present and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.” 

This means victims are notified regarding court hearings and other developments in their cases. They are entitled to provide testimony during trial and make a statement at the time of sentencing. Victims may also receive financial compensation through restitution payments or a victims’ compensation fund. 

Yet, many victims are left seeking more. 

It is common for victims to want to speak with the person who harmed them—to express how the offender’s conduct impacted their lives and directly hear the offender accept responsibility for his or her actions. 

Victim-offender dialogue — sometimes referred to as restorative justice dialogue or victim-offender mediation — is a tool for addressing the needs, concerns, and desires of victims.

Essentially, this process is non-adversarial, and all parties must be willing participants. 

Extensive vetting occurs prior to contact between victims and offenders to ensure no additional harm occurs. Moreover, victims initiate the process, which means that victim-offender dialogue only occurs if the victim seeks it. 

When these dialogues occur, trained and experienced facilitators mediate them. 

Victim-offender dialogue is not appropriate in all cases and is not a substitute for the traditional criminal justice system. It is just an additional tool to address needs that criminal prosecution does not meet. 

With some caveats, research evidence suggests that victim-offender dialogue can have positive impacts on victims’ healing and may even have positive effects against recidivism. 

A recent review of research found that victim-offender dialogue programming may help reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of crime. This matters because many victims report they do not receive help dealing with this trauma through the criminal justice system. What’s more, large majorities of crime victims prefer alternative accountability mechanisms over incarceration, according to a recent survey.

Additional studies have reported high levels of satisfaction among victims and offenders participating in victim-offender dialogue programs compared to those exposed solely to the traditional criminal justice system. 

In addition, offenders participating in victim-offender dialogue are less likely to re-offend, although some of these outcomes may be attributed to self-selection rather than the dialogue itself. In other words, offenders who voluntarily participate and show remorse may already be at low risk for re-offending, so it is difficult to attribute lower rates of re-offending directly to their participation in victim-offender dialogue. 

Nevertheless, the primary objective of victim-offender dialogue is to address the harm experienced by victims rather than solely focusing on reducing recidivism.

In light of these positive research findings, many states have embraced victim-offender dialogue. In 2020, Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) released a report examining research evidence on victim-offender dialogue and its use across the country. Thirty-seven states provide some statutory support for victim-offender dialogue or similar restorative justice practices. Many of these states have programs that enable victim-offender dialogues within the adult criminal justice system. Other states, such as Florida, have programs that are limited to the juvenile justice system. 

As the OPPAGA report noted, there is only limited statutory support for restorative justice in Florida, and the Florida Department of Corrections does not have any formal victim-offender dialogue programs for adults. 

Despite a lack of statutory support and official programming, victim-offender dialogue is occurring in Florida. In pockets around the state, organizations such as the Florida Restorative Justice Association are working with public officials and facilitating victim-offender dialogues. Unfortunately, the informal nature of this work means that many victims are unaware that victim-offender dialogue is an option in the state.

Florida has made great strides in establishing and protecting victims’ rights, but too often, victims are still relegated to a secondary role.

It is essential for Florida lawmakers to consider reforms that further enable victim-offender dialogues throughout the state. 

Even relatively minor steps, such as defining victim-offender dialogue in statute and ensuring that victims are aware of its availability, would go a long way.

A version of this commentary first appeared in the Sarasota Observer.  

The post Victim-offender dialogues may help victims heal appeared first on Reason Foundation.

An occupational license is essentially a government-issued stamp of approval to work in certain regulated occupations, such as a barber, cosmetologist, real estate agent, or construction contractor. Obtaining an occupational license generally involves fulfilling training and education prerequisites, paying applicable fees, and formally applying to a licensing board for evaluation.

Occupational licensing is intended to protect consumers by setting minimum standards, but research suggests it often has little to no effect on quality. Instead, licensing can create arbitrary barriers to entry, limit the labor supply, and raise costs for consumers. While existing license holders may benefit from reduced competition, consumers and prospective licensees suffer from higher prices and reduced labor market fluidity.

Of course, an applicant’s prior convictions may be relevant to licensure decisions, but applicants shouldn’t be automatically disqualified because of a prior conviction that bears no relation to the duties and responsibilities of the occupation. The good news is Virginia law currently requires individualized consideration for each applicant to determine whether their conviction record is directly related to the occupation. This is broadly a fair approach, and most states have adopted similar frameworks.

But there’s a problem in Virginia: people with convictions don’t know if their record disqualifies them until they’ve completed all the licensing requirements and submitted their application. This uncertainty creates a barrier to entry and can waste applicants’ time and money.

If signed, Senate Bill 826, introduced by state Sen. Mamie Locke (D-23), would establish a process to determine eligibility before applicants complete their education and training. This is a common-sense reform to the license approval process that would improve the customer experience of license applicants. Twenty-five other states have already adopted predetermination processes like the one established in SB 826 to provide clarity to prospective applicants on the front end.

SB 826 passed in the Virginia Senate on Feb. 3 and passed in the Virginia House of Representatives on Feb. 18. It is uncertain whether Youngkin will sign the legislation, in part due to a fiscal impact statement indicating that “the bill will create additional expenditures for which the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) is not currently appropriated.” However, the anticipated fiscal impacts are largely based on a questionable assumption that SB 826 would greatly add to the current workload of DOPR and other agencies. According to the fiscal impact statement:

DPOR may need to increase staffing levels to process the requests, support additional board meetings, and hold additional hearings depending on the number of predetermination requests. According to the agency, approximately 250 determination hearings are currently held on average for applicants across all the agency’s board [sic], which represents fewer than ten percent of all applicants with some form of criminal record. DPOR anticipates that as a result of this bill, that number would increase significantly because individuals would no longer have to complete the application process or pay application fees before requesting a determination.

Assuming the number of hearings doubles to 500, which the agency considers a low estimate, DPOR indicates that an additional three legal hearing officers, one administrative coordinator, one court reporter/transcriptionist, and one supervisor/presiding officer would be required at an annual cost of $740,000. Without these additional staff and a doubling of the number of hearings, DPOR estimates that the current backlog of 145 days to complete a hearing would extend to 280 days. Additionally, administrative and overheads costs associated with a hearing average approximately $800, resulting in an additional $200,000 annually.

DOPR’s projection that SB 826 could more than double the number of determination hearings is remarkably high, perhaps overly so. Data from other states suggest more modest expectations are in order. For example, Ohio licensing boards received just 215 predetermination requests in the first two years of implementation, compared to the 293,551 license applications approved by Ohio boards over that period. While 215 predetermination requests might seem like a relatively low number, they provided valuable clarity to the people who submitted requests. Seventy-seven out of those 215 people were determined to have disqualifying records. Without the predetermination process, those 77 people would have otherwise needed to satisfy all the other requirements for a license and submit an application only to find out that their conviction record was disqualifying.

Rather than flooding DPOR with new requests, SB 826 would primarily shift the timing of the roughly 250 determination hearings that already occur each year. Because predeterminations made under SB 826 would be binding, subsequent hearings would not be required unless an applicant was convicted of another crime between their predetermination and applying.

Although a dramatic increase in determination hearings is unlikely, DPOR’s claim that 250 additional hearings would require six new employees and nearly $1 million annually suggests that Virginia’s process for reviewing conviction records is substantially more intensive and inefficient than in other states. DPOR currently holds 250 fact-finding hearings in cases where license applicants have a potentially disqualifying conviction record. DPOR says that 90% percent of applications that require a hearing are ultimately approved, suggesting that many of those hearings are not necessary.

SB 826 leaves DPOR with broad discretion regarding the details of implementation, so the agency has the flexibility to identify ways of streamlining the predetermination process. Nonetheless, the legislation could be amended to allow a small fee for predetermination requests. Among the 25 states with predetermination processes, 16 allow or require licensing boards to charge fees to cover administrative costs. These fees are most commonly capped at $25 but range from $5 to $100.

Reducing uncertainty for license applicants with criminal records would be consistent with Youngkin’s broader efforts to expand the state’s workforce through reforms to occupational licensing and other regulatory approval processes. In 2023, Virginia became the 20th state to adopt universal license recognition, allowing people licensed in other states to receive expedited approval to work in Virginia. The reform has already helped over 500 workers with out-of-state occupational licenses join Virginia’s workforce. In a press release, Governor Glenn Youngkin praised universal license recognition, saying:

My administration has worked tirelessly, and we’ve been successful in bringing thousands of Virginians off the sidelines and back into the workforce. But what I hear from businesses of all sizes, large and small, is they need more, they need more workers. Universal license recognition will assist in resolving worker shortages while at the same time benefiting consumers through reduced costs of goods and services.

Youngkin took further action to reduce the burden of occupational licensing regulations in October 2024 by signing an executive order that directs state agencies to streamline regulatory approval processes “to reduce wait times, reduce costs and improve the permit, license, certification, and registration, application processes for Virginians.”

Virginia’s recent reforms are helping to alleviate labor shortages across the state. As the Virginia Department of Occupations and Professional Regulation director, Kishore Thota told Virginia Mercury last year:

One industry that has been particularly hurt by labor shortages is the waterworks and wastewater works operators…Over 10% of the licenses issued under [universal license recognition] have been waterworks operators and wastewater works operators. [Universal license recognition] will continue to provide an easier pathway for qualified operators to come and work in Virginia

However, there is still ample room to improve Virginia’s occupational licensing laws and regulations. Reforms that reduce licensing barriers for individuals with prior criminal convictions could further expand Virginia’s workforce while offering former offenders a second chance. In just the past decade, 40 states (excluding Virginia) have adopted reforms to empower people with prior convictions to pursue productive work in licensed occupations. SB 826 would bring Virginia’s licensing policies in line with the 25 other states that have adopted predetermination processes.

Successful implementation by 25 other states demonstrates that predetermination is a feasible, common-sense solution to the uncertainty associated with licensing decisions. Consistent with Youngkin’s priority of improving regulatory approval processes, SB 826 would save time and money and would reduce frustration for Virginians seeking government permission to work. 

The post Virginia’s Senate Bill 826 would reduce uncertainty associated with occupational licensing approvals appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Arizona Proposition 140 would replace Arizona’s current semi-open partisan primary election process with a single open primary. The proposition would also require the Arizona State Legislature or the secretary of state to decide how many candidates would advance from the single open primary to the general election. The proposition may or may not establish ranked-choice voting in certain elections, depending on actions by the legislature or secretary of state. Proposition 140 would affect all elective state and county offices and candidates for the U.S. Senate and for the U.S. House of Representatives. Notably, the proposition has unique implications for elections to the Arizona State House of Representatives because each district elects two members to office rather than one.    

Currently, Arizona has a semi-open primary system whereby only registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to participate in each party’s primary elections. Only registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters may vote in Democratic Party primaries, and only Republicans and unaffiliated voters may vote in Republican Party primaries. In most primary elections, the candidate receiving the most votes in each party’s respective primary advances to the general election—one candidate represents each party. In elections to the Arizona State House of Representatives, each district elects two representatives, so more than one candidate may emerge from a party’s primary. Proposition 140 would replace this system with an open primary where all candidates appear on one ballot, regardless of party affiliation. 

Under the initiative, a specified number of candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election. Proposition 140 does not specify how many candidates will move on to the general election; instead, it gives the Arizona State Legislature until November 1, 2025, to decide. For example, lawmakers could decide that only the top two candidates from the open primary should be included in the general election. Or the legislature could allow up to five general election candidates in most races. In elections to the Arizona State House, the number of general election candidates could range from four to seven. If the legislature does not act by November 1, 2025, the secretary of state will determine how many candidates are allowed to compete in general elections.

Finally, the initiative would establish rank-choice voting in general elections with more than two candidates (or more than four candidates in general elections to the Arizona State House of Representatives). Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Fiscal Impact 

The official fiscal impact analysis prepared by the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee states that “[b]ecause the proposition’s implementing details are subject to further action by state and local governments, the overall fiscal impact cannot be determined in advance.” However, the analysis suggests that Proposition 140 would increase the cost of administering elections by:

1. Increasing the number of candidates that appear on the general election ballot
2. Changing the length of both sample and election ballots 
3. Increasing the number of voters receiving a primary ballot

Additional costs would likely be primarily borne by local governments rather than the state. There is uncertainty regarding Prop. 140’s impact on presidential primary elections, which are currently paid for by the state. Prop. 140 prohibits the use of state monies for partisan primary elections, but it does not explicitly require a single open primary for presidential races. In other words, presidential primaries could not continue to be funded by the state unless the legislature takes action to alter the presidential primary process. 

Proponents’ Arguments

Supporters of Prop. 140 argue that it will result in greater electoral competition, improve representation, and reduce political polarization. For example, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that: 

Today, 80% of all Congressional and Legislative candidates are basically elected outright in low turnout partisan primaries. This reform will require more competition which creates better choices, and better results for Arizona. It will make our state stronger.

The campaign in favor of Prop. 140 is led by the Make Elections Fair PAC. According to Sarah Smallhouse, chairperson of the Make Elections Fair PAC:

With independent and unaffiliated voters now accounting for the largest part of the Arizona electorate it’s illogical to confine voter choices in the primaries to the very parties they’ve chosen to separate from. Let all candidates compete, let the voters decide and let the best candidates win.

Paul Johnson, former mayor of Phoenix, has also argued that: 

This initiative to amend our State Constitution is intended to reward the individual over the party, to cherish the heroes who embrace the individual power granted to us in our sacred founding documents. To fulfill the wishes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson who all warned us about the power of political faction. Today, we are here to give voice to the individual who wants freedom, today we are here to restore American values which celebrate individual liberty. This proposition promotes competition within our political system, to ensure that the best ideas rise to the top and that voices of all Americans are heard. 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of Prop, 140 have argued that eliminating the current partisan primary process would violate the rights of private political parties to select their own nominees. As Jeff DeWit, former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, has argued:

Republicans don’t want Democrats voting for our primary candidates, and I’m sure Democrats don’t want us voting for theirs…All unaffiliated voters, or as they are commonly referred to as, Independents, already can and do vote on the primaries to make their voices heard.

Others have objected to Prop. 140 because it may lead to some political parties to be entirely excluded from general elections. In some cases, the top candidates that advance from the primary could all be from the same party. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has raised this concern, commenting that: 

…their measure will result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot, depriving many voters of any choice at all.

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice. 

Political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. In particular, replacing Arizona’s current semi-open primary process would not have any appreciable effect on the ability of unaffiliated voters to participate. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.

Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, would improve Arizona’s current general election process. Ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, and such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” Unfortunately, it is not clear whether Prop 140 would establish ranked-choice voting. The proposition leaves much to be decided by the legislature or secretary of state.

Overall, Prop. 140 grants far too much power to the legislature or secretary of state by allowing them to determine how many candidates can compete in general elections. The impact of Prop. 140 is, therefore, uncertain and could generate substantial conflict without any clear benefit.

The post Arizona Proposition 140 would implement a single primary for all candidates appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado Proposition 131 would change the election process for certain state and federal offices by establishing top-four open primaries and ranked-choice voting. The initiative would only affect elections for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University Board of Regents, the state board of education, and the state legislature. 

Currently, Colorado has a semi-open primary system where only registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to participate in each party’s primary elections. Only registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters may vote in Democratic Party primaries, and only Republicans and unaffiliated voters may vote in Republican Party primaries. The candidate receiving the most votes in each party’s respective primary advances to the general election—one candidate represents each party.

In the top-four open primary system proposed by Proposition 131, all candidates would appear on the same ballot in primary elections. Voters could cast their vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. The top four candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Rather than one candidate representing each party, multiple candidates from a single party could be among the top four that advance to the general election. 

Proposition 131 would establish rank-choice voting in the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their vote. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Notably, Proposition 131 is unlikely to take effect in the near future. In May 2024, the Colorado Legislature passed Senate Bill 10, a law that requires 12 municipalities to adopt and implement ranked-choice voting before Proposition 131 is implemented for state and federal elections. Given that only a few municipalities in Colorado currently use ranked-choice voting, Proposition 131 likely won’t be implemented until 2028 or 2030.

Fiscal Impact 

Proposition 131 will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. The official fiscal impact statement prepared by Legislative Council Staff projects a $3.6 million increase in Department of State revenue in the second and third years of implementation. The projected increase assumes that the Department of State will adjust business filing fees to cover additional costs. 

Proposition 131 is projected to cost $97,280 in the first year of implementation. Costs will rise substantially to $5,925,869 in the second year and $5,689,293 in the third year. The official cost estimates include expenditures for voting system software updates, poll worker training, voter outreach, and ballot redesign. 

Proponents’ Arguments 

Supporters of Proposition 131 argue that top-four open primaries will provide voters with more choice and reduce political polarization. For example, Loren Furman, Colorado Chamber of Commerce president and CEO, has argued that:

By expanding voter choice, we believe that Proposition 131 will encourage balance on both sides of the aisle and reduce the polarization that leads to bad policy for business.

Proponents suggest that Colorado’s current election system grants too little voice to voters who are not members of either major political party. Dick Williams, the former chair of the Colorado Republican Party, has argued: 

We used to have a great process in Colorado. It was very competitive, and it worked well. Colorado has changed in the last 10 years. The electorate has changed. We went from a third, a third, a third in the electorate to now, nearly 50% of the electorate are unaffiliated voters. They are rejecting both parties, and they’re rejecting both parties because both parties are going to their extremes, both Republicans and Democrats.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis endorsed Proposition 131, saying: 

While Colorado has among the best voter integrity and access protections, no system of voting is perfect, and I think instant runoff voting is better than our current system because it gives voters more choices. I’m hopeful that if it passes it will encourage participation and improve our democracy.

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of Proposition 131 argue that the initiative is a misleading attempt to undermine Colorado’s election system. For example, U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert has stated that “[r]anked choice voting is a scheme launched by well-moneyed interests who are only concerned with their own power and not giving Coloradans a choice at the ballot box.”

Some opponents have also argued that Proposition 131 is backed by powerful interests, including big corporations and wealthy individuals. Patrick Dillon, the co-chair of the Green Party of Colorado, has argued that:

Just like the origin of this proposal, it’s backed by big money. So in the open primary, what you’re going to find is those who have access to those resources, and those who are interested in protecting their corporate interests, they’re going to fund the candidates that best align with them.

Former Republican State Representative Dave Williams specifically targeted Kent Thiry, a sponsor of the initiative and former healthcare industry executive, saying:

Self-serving rich liberals shouldn’t be able to buy their way onto a ballot and manipulate democracy with deceptive marketing…Thiry wants to be governor and validate his ego by spending his massive wealth to change the rules of the game so he can have a better chance at winning.

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-four election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects.

Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.”

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Moreover, Colorado already has semi-open primaries, so unaffiliated voters are able to participate in partisan primary elections. Better alternatives for providing voters with greater voice and choice in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.

Overall, the Colorado top-four ranked-choice voting initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-four system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections. 

The post Colorado Proposition 131 would implement top-four ranked-choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, the Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, on the November 2024 ballot would repeal a 2020 initiative approved by Alaska voters to adopt open primaries and a ranked-choice voting system. It would return Alaska to partisan primaries and a single-choice, plurality-wins vote system. 

Alaska currently uses a top-four open primary system for state executive, legislative, and congressional elections. Under this system, all candidates––regardless of party affiliation––compete in a primary election to determine the top four candidates. Those candidates then proceed to the general election. The initiative to repeal top-four ranked-choice voting would reestablish Alaska’s prior system, where each party held separate primary elections, resulting in one nominee representing each party in the general election. 

The initiative would also repeal rank-choice voting in the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on those voters’ second choices. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority. The repeal initiative would reestablish Alaska’s prior system where voters must choose one candidate, and the candidate who receives the most votes––but not necessarily a majority of votes––is the declared winner. 

Fiscal Impact 

The Alaska Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative would likely have a fiscal impact, although the direction and magnitude are unclear. The official Statement of Cost produced by the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections estimated a cost of $2.5 million for a public education campaign.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Proponents of the initiative argue that Alaska’s top-four ranked-choice voting system is confusing, overly complicated, and undermines public trust in elections. As Trent England and Jason Snead, co-chairs of the Stop Ranked Choice Voting Coalition wrote in an opinion column for the Juneau Empire: “RCV creates new ways for voters to make mistakes and new questions about how to count ballots. At the same time, it makes elections overreliant on technology, reducing transparency and accountability.”

Proponents also cite the contested results from a 2022 special election for Alaska’s congressional district as evidence that Alaska’s top-four ranked-choice voting system is flawed. In that election, Mary Peltola (D) beat former Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and Nick Begich (R) in a three-way race. Begich was eliminated in the first round of vote tabulation because he received the fewest votes. Peltola won against Palin in the second round of vote tabulation after reallocating second-choice votes from voters who ranked Begich first. If Palin voters had instead ranked Begich as their first choice, he would have won in a one-to-one race against Peltola. In particular, critics point to 11,000 ballots that were disqualified in the second round because voters only indicated their top preference. Specifically, England and Snead argue that:  

During the state’s special at-large congressional election, nearly 15,000 Alaskans had their ballots thrown out. This included more than 11,000 tossed because voters selected only one candidate without ranking any others. When that candidate was eliminated, their votes were eliminated as well. 

Proponents of the repeal initiative argue that the ranked-choice system did not prevent the two Republican candidates from splitting the party’s vote, allowing Peltola to gain a majority. Palin, now a national spokesman for Alaskans for Honest Elections, has characterized ranked-choice voting as “the weirdest, most convoluted and most complicated voter suppression tool that Alaskans could have come up with.” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of the repeal initiative generally argue that Alaska’s current top-four open primary system allows voters who are not members of a major political party to have a voice in taxpayer-funded elections. They suggest that open primaries require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just their own political party. Bryan Schroder, former U.S. attorney for the District of Alaska, has argued that: 

Alaska’s ranked choice voting system is good public policy. It gives a voice to the majority of Alaskans who are not at either end of the political extremes. It also allows for better candidates, qualified individuals who can take thoughtful, moderated positions that would not have allowed them to survive a primary vote in the last few years, in either political party. 

Opponents of the repeal initiative also argue that ranked-choice voting allows more opportunity for minor party candidates to compete. Chris Bye, a former Libertarian candidate for Alaska’s U.S. House district, argued that: 

Party-induced fear prevents many voters from researching other candidates…If we are looking for the best representative, we should not be shackled into choosing the lesser of two evils; we must look beyond fear and the gatekeepers of the political parties. We should grasp the opportunity that the open primary and ranked-choice voting provide for a better governance future. 

More generally, supporters of ranked-choice voting point to public polling that suggests the system is not confusing for voters. FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting, cited a 2022 poll of Alaska voters that found that “85% of Alaskans reported RCV to be ‘simple.’” FairVote also argued that voters who only rank their first choice may do so intentionally, not due to confusion. The same 2022 poll found that “[a] supermajority of voters (66%) ranked multiple candidates. Of the 33% of voters who only voted for one candidate, 75% reported the reason was ‘that was the only candidate I liked.’” 

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-four election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.  

Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective alternative to plurality vote systems for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting reduces the risk of spoiler effects, it allows voters to cast votes for minor party candidates without fear of “wasting their vote.” There is some evidence that minor party candidates experience more support under ranked-choice voting than under plurality vote systems.  

However, ranked-choice voting––like any voting system––can produce suboptimal outcomes. One standard that mathematicians and political scientists use for evaluating voting systems is the “Condorcet winner criterion.” In voting systems that pass the Condorcet winner criterion, the winning candidate will always win in a one-on-one matchup against every other candidate. Neither ranked-choice voting nor Alaska’s current plurality vote system pass the Condorcet criterion, although data suggest that Condorcet winners are more likely under ranked-choice voting. According to FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting: 

Of the nearly 500 single-winner RCV elections in the United States since 2004 in which we have sufficient ballot data to assess whether the Condorcet winner won the election, all but two were won by the Condorcet winner. The two elections that did not elect the Condorcet candidate are the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont and the 2022 special election for U.S. House in Alaska. 

Alaska’s 2022 special election was controversial because the Condorcet winner, Nick Begich, did not win. Competition for first-choice votes between Begich and Palin produced a “center-squeeze effect,” which can also occur under plurality voting systems. The particular circumstance of two Republicans running against one Democrat in the same general election was the product of Alaska’s top-four primary system, rather than ranked-choice voting. 

While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” Critics have particularly cited concerns about ballots that are “discarded” because they only indicate a first-choice vote for a candidate that was eliminated in a prior round of tabulation. Failure to rank second or third-choice candidates may be due to confusion, but polling of Alaska voters suggests that voters often intentionally choose to just rank their top choice. On average, about 7.5% of ballots cast in ranked-choice elections fall into this category. By comparison, about 40% of voters drop off between the first and second rounds of traditional runoff elections. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. 

In short, repealing Alaska’s top-four open primary system would restore the ability of political parties as private organizations to determine the methods for selecting party nominees. However, repealing ranked-choice voting and returning to a single-choice plurality wins vote system for general elections is unlikely to improve (and may even reduce) the representativeness of election outcomes.  

The post Alaska Ballot Measure 2 would repeal top-four ranked-choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Arizona Proposition 311 would impose a $20 fee on every criminal conviction to fund a lump-sum $250,000 benefit paid to the spouse or children of first responders killed in the line of duty. Revenues generated by the fee will be directed to a dedicated state fund. If the fund balance exceeds $2 million, the Arizona Legislature may use those funds for other purposes including law enforcement training and equipment. 

Additionally, Prop. 311 would expand the definition of aggravated assault to include assault against a peace officer, tribal peace officer, firefighter, fire marshal, fire inspector, emergency medical care technician, or paramedic. Prop. 311 would also increase the penalty for aggravated assault against a first responder.  

Fiscal Impact 

There is no official state estimate of the fiscal impact of Prop. 311. It would likely have a positive fiscal impact due to revenues from the $20 fee it would impose on every criminal conviction. While those revenues will fund the $250,000 benefit created by the amendment, revenues above $2 million may be used by the state for other purposes. Given the large number of criminal convictions that occur each year and the relatively small number of officers killed in the line of duty annually, it is likely that the fund balance will increase to over $2 million.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Proponents of Prop. 311 argue that it is necessary to support the spouses and children of first responders killed in the line of duty. State Senator David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), who sponsored legislation to place Prop. 311 on the ballot, stated, “That $250,000 can go a long way to helping our families of those victims of crime, certainly when there are police officers and first responders who have sworn to defend and protect us.”

Proponents have also cited difficulty recruiting first responders as a reason to support Prop. 311. In testimony before the Arizona State Legislature, Sam Stone, former chief of staff to former Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, argued: 

We have reached a point where it is essentially impossible for us to recruit the numbers of officers necessary to provide for basic public safety needs…And it is now incumbent on our elected officials at every level to take the steps necessary to demonstrate first and foremost to our officers and potential applicants, that they are wanted and needed, welcomed in our cities and towns and counties. 

Opponents’ Arguments  

Opponents of Prop. 311 generally support providing additional benefits to the families of first responders killed in the line of duty. However, opponents have raised concerns about the use of a $20 conviction fee as a funding mechanism. For example, Arizona State Senator Lela Alston (D-Phoenix) said: 

I have always supported death benefits for our workers…I do have a problem with this bill, and that is that it creates another fine that is disproportionate to certain members of our population…And it would be a preferable option to me if we were to pay that the death benefit directly out of the general fund to the family of the firefighter or police officer who was killed and not do any more fines in our legal system. 

Discussion  

Providing financial support to the families of first responders killed in the line of duty is a noble cause. Currently, family members may receive support from a variety of sources. The federal Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program provides a one-time lump-sum benefit of $437,503 to the families of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. That amount is adjusted annually to account for inflation. Arizona’s Public Safety Personnel Retirement System—the pension system serving sworn law enforcement and firefighters statewide—offers monthly payments to surviving family members of police, firefighters, and correctional officers equal to their loved ones’ average monthly compensation at the time of death. Families of first responders killed in the line of duty may also receive health care, life insurance, and education scholarship benefits. The additional $250,000 benefit that Prop. 311 would provide may be desirable, but it is unlikely to move the needle regarding the recruitment of first responders.  

Whatever the merits of providing families with additional compensation, the funding mechanism for Prop. 311 is flawed. Charging a $20 fee on top of all existing fines and fees already imposed for criminal convictions is unnecessarily capricious. The penalties for criminal acts are established in statute and scaled to the severity of criminal offenses. Individuals convicted of criminal offenses in Arizona already pay millions of dollars in fines and fees each year. In 2022, the Superior Court of Arizona collected $15,187,611 from fines, sanctions, and forfeitures. Surcharges and fees generated an additional $69,761,155 in revenue. Prop. 311 would pile on more fees, without regard to the severity of criminal convictions. Moreover, Prop. 311 would explicitly prohibit judges from waiving the $20 fee, meaning that no exceptions can be made for the personal or financial circumstances of individual offenders. Alternative funding mechanisms, such as paying benefits out of the state general fund, would be more appropriate.  

The post Arizona Proposition 311 would use criminal convictions to fund first responder death benefits appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Currently, the California state constitution forbids slavery or involuntary servitude. The state currently sometimes requires prisoners to work while serving their sentence. California Proposition 6 would change the state constitution, striking the current text and adding new language as follows:  

Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime. 

(a) Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited. 

(b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not discipline any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment. 

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from awarding credits to an incarcerated person who voluntarily accepts a work assignment. 

(d) Amendments made to this section by the measure adding this subdivision shall become operative on January 1, 2025. 

Fiscal Impact 

According to the official fiscal impact analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 6 could have a positive or negative fiscal impact. As the analysis explains: 

[I]f people in prison and jail no longer face consequences for refusing to work, prisons and/or jails might have to find other ways to encourage working. If this is done by increasing pay, costs would increase. If this is done by giving more time credits instead, costs would decrease because people would serve less time. 

Proponents’ Arguments  

Proposition 6 was referred to the ballot by the California State Legislature. State Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), the lawmaker who authored the amendment, has argued:  

Involuntary servitude is an extension of slavery…Today, slavery takes on the modern form of involuntary servitude, including forced labor in prisons. Slavery is wrong in all forms and California should be clear in denouncing that in the constitution. 

Prop. 6 is also supported by several advocacy and non-profit organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union. Carmen-Nicole Cox, director of government affairs with the ACLU California Action, has argued that the proposed amendment “is by and large about human agency and human dignity…Anything short of the ability to withhold, or even subsequently withdraw your consent to labor for the benefit of someone else, is slavery.” 

Opponents’ Arguments  

There is no official opposition to Prop. 6.  

Discussion  

The important symbolism of removing any use of slavery or involuntary servitude from the state constitution is obvious. In this case, convicted criminals lose many of their rights and may be required to work—involuntary servitude if they don’t want to work—but they don’t become property. Arguably the question Prop. 6 raises is whether prison managers forcing prisoners to work is just or not. 

Work programs in prisons cover broad ranges of duties, from requiring inmates to do cleaning and repairs to selecting volunteers for cooking or laundry or similar duties, to working in real industries, sometimes with programs run by private companies. There are many pros and cons to these practices. A large-scale study by the National Institute of Justice found that inmates who work while in prison are significantly more likely to find work after they are released and are less likely to be rearrested or convicted for committing more crimes. This was voluntary work, however, not forced labor. 

Some argue that overall prison work programs help make prisons more of a rehabilitative experience, while others say the prison work system is rife with abuse. 

So, some might expect California to see improvements in its prisons from ending forced labor while others might predict more unemployed ex-offenders and recidivism if Prop. 6 passes. There is a sound argument that the strict language of the California state constitution, which is similar to the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, should be interpreted as meaning that judges can sentence convicted criminals to labor (involuntary servitude), but that prison managers cannot take it upon themselves to require prisoners to work without the judge so sentencing them. 

One concern about this amendment that was raised when a similar change was made to Colorado’s state constitution was that it would also ban judges from ordering community service. But courts have ruled that community service requirements are not involuntary servitude and so would likely uphold continued use of community service as a punishment even if this amendment passes. 

The post California Proposition 6 would end forced work in prisons appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Idaho Proposition 1 would change state primary elections from a closed system, in which only party members can vote in their respective parties’ primaries, to an open primary where anyone can vote for any party candidate. Candidates may indicate their party affiliation on the ballot, but they are not required to do so. 

The initiative would also change the process by which candidates advance from the primary to the general election. Currently, the candidate receiving the most votes in each party’s respective primary advances to the general election—one candidate represents each party. Under the initiative, the top four candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. 

Finally, the initiative would establish rank-choice voting in the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Fiscal Impact

The Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane estimated that the cost of upgrading Idaho’s vote tabulation systems and equipment could range between $25 million and $40 million based on previous county purchases. Moreover, public education campaigns are likely necessary to inform voters of the ranked-choice voting process. Based on public education expenditures surrounding Alaska’s transition to ranked-choice voting, the Idaho Freedom Foundation estimates the cost in Idaho could be nearly $5 million. Switching to an open primary system may result in modest cost savings by eliminating the need print separate ballot styles for each party. 

Proponents’ Arguments

Supporters of open primary systems generally argue that closed primaries exclude the 270,000 Idaho voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. Therefore, the outcome of primary elections is decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that open primaries would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party.

According to Luke Mayville, co-founder of Reclaim Idaho:

The most widespread grievance with the current system is that independent voters feel like they don’t have a voice. Those who haven’t aligned themselves with a political party understand that they are being blocked from voting in the most important elections, and it’s very clear to them that is unfair. Beyond the independent voters, Democrats and Republicans and nearly everyone else sympathize with independent voters and want them to have a voice.

Opponent’s Arguments

Opponents of open primaries argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function. In their view, open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage. For example, Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon has argued that the Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative would “essentially sideline political parties from the primary process, enabling Democrats, independents and even Socialists to determine your nominee for the general election.”

Opponents also argue that the Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative would make voting too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. For example, Moon has also stated that: 

The American Republic has long been guided by the principle of one person, one vote. Ranked choice voting twists this system into something unrecognizable. The foundational premise of American elections is that both the winner and the loser must have confidence that the contest was completely above board. Ranked choice voting sows doubt and confusion, opens our elections up for fraud, and decreases trust in our electoral system.

Discussion

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-four election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice. Supporters of the top-four component of the initiative further argue that allowing the top four candidates to proceed to the general election would provide voters with more choices.

Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” 

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts. 

Overall, the Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-four system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections.

The post Idaho Proposition 1 would allow top-four ranked choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Nevada Question 3 would change state primary elections from a closed system in which only party members are allowed to vote in their respective parties’ primaries to a top-five open primary where anyone can vote for any one candidate of any party. 

The initiative would also change the process by which candidates from each primary advance to the general election. Currently, the candidates receiving the most votes in each party’s primary advance to the general election—one candidate represents each party. Under the initiative, the top five candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.  

The initiative would also establish rank-choice voting in the primaries and the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority. 

In Nevada, ballot initiatives must be approved in two successive general elections before taking effect. Question 3 was first approved in 2022, with 52.94% of votes in favor and 47.06% against. Therefore, it must be approved again on Nov. 5, 2024, to take effect.   

Fiscal Impact  

Nevada Question 3 will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. A fiscal analysis prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of Nevada’s Legislative Counsel Bureau estimated one-time state and local government costs of approximately $3.2 million prior to the November 2026 General Election. These one-time costs would relate to “voter outreach and education, increased ballot stock costs, personnel expenses, equipment, software and programming costs for voting machines, and updates to training materials.” The analysis also estimated ongoing implementation costs of $57,000 per fiscal year. Ongoing costs would include “the payment of license fees to the vendors supplying election software to each of Nevada’s seventeen counties.”  

Proponents’ Arguments For 

Proponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that voters should have more choices and that non-party-affiliated voters should have a voice in the primary process. As noted by the Institute for Political Innovation, more than 35 percent of Nevada voters are unable to vote in a primary because they are registered as independent or non-partisan, and “many more [feel] under-represented by their respective party.”  

Supporters of open primary systems generally argue that closed primaries result in polarization because, in closed primaries, candidates are competing for the vote of a partisan minority. Closed primary systems exclude voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. The outcome of primary elections is, therefore, decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that open primaries could result in moderation because it would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party. 

Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice. Supporters of the top-five component of the initiative further argue that allowing the top-five candidates to proceed to the general election would provide voters with more choice. According to Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada, “We don’t want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it’s just the people with the most money.” 

Opponents’ Arguments Against 

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that it would make voting too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. According to Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices: 

Ranked choice voting makes casting a ballot more time-consuming, more complicated, and more confusing for voters … It will inevitably lead to increased errors. Ranked choice vote ballots are significantly more likely to be thrown out and uncounted because of those voters’ mistakes, ultimately disenfranchising more voters because of an overly complex and burdensome process. 

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 and open primaries also argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function. In their view, open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage. 

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-five election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.”  

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.  

Overall, the Nevada top-five ranked choice voting initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-five system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections. 

The post Nevada Question 3 would allow top-five ranked choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Oregon Measure 117 would establish a rank-choice voting system in general elections for non-legislative offices, including the president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries.  

Currently, federal and state general elections in Oregon follow a plurality vote system, wherein the candidate receiving the most votes, but not necessarily a majority is determined the winner through a single round of voting.  

Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of the votes. This iterative process of elimination and reallocation of ranked votes is sometimes referred to as an “instant runoff.” 

Cities, counties, school districts, other local governments, and local districts would be authorized to use ranked-choice voting for local elections unless home rule charters preempt it. Elections for state legislative offices would continue to follow the current plurality voting system.  

Fiscal Impact 

The Oregon ranked-choice voting for federal and state elections measure will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. Oregon’s Financial Estimate Committee produced the state’s official fiscal impact analysis for the measure. According to the committee’s analysis, the measure is estimated to cost the state government $0.9 million from 2023 to 2025 due to additional staffing and consulting services needed for implementation. From 2025 to 2027, state government costs will increase to $5.6 million and include costs for public outreach and IT needs. Additionally, the County Clerks estimate $2.3 million in initial expenditures by local governments to improve technology, train staff, and test the new system. Local governments will also face ongoing costs, including $1.8 million for printing and logistics in every statewide election. Software and maintenance contracts are estimated to cost local governments $0.4 million annually.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Measure 117 was referred to the ballot by the Oregon State Legislature and the campaign in support of the measure is directed by Oregon Ranked Choice Voting Advocates. Supporters argue that ranked-choice voting is more representative of voter preferences than plurality systems because candidates must secure support from a majority of voters to win. As Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield (D-16) stated: 

Ranked choice voting will give voters more choice, encourage voter engagement, and strengthen our democracy by improving peoples’ perception of elections and election outcomes. House Bill 2004 would make sure people in power are elected by a true 50% majority. 

Supporters also argue that ranked-choice voting gives voters more choice because they don’t need to worry about spoiler effects from minor party candidates. In written testimony, Emily Hawley with the American Civil Liberties Union––Oregon argued that “[b]y mitigating concerns of “splitting the vote,” ranked choice voting allows a broader—and more representative—range of candidates and, ultimately, elected officials.”  

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of the measure argue that ranked-choice voting would make elections too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. For example, State Rep. E. Werner Reschke (R-55) argued:  

Today, too many Oregonians are intimidated by the length of their ballot and do not understand the meaning of all the races and ballot measures. Why would we want to make the ballot even longer and more complicated with more choices? Ranked Choice voting could very well discourage voting because ballots could end up being multiple pages long. 

The Oregon Association of County Clerks raised objections to the measure, citing the logistical complexity and fiscal impact of implementing a ranked-choice voting system. In written testimony opposing the legislature’s referral of the measure, the Association cited the following reasons for its position:  

• RCV makes for a more complicated primary. 

• Reconciling RCV between multiple counties is complicated and will remove final tallying from county election officials. 

• The difficult task placed on Election Officials seeking to reconcile the number of ballots accepted and tallied when multiple ballot pages/sheets are sent to each voter (many voters only return the ballot pages with the contests that are of interest to them). 

• There are substantial costs involved with implementing RCV. 

• Current public confidence in elections is low, and the complications involved with RCV have the potential to fuel conspiracy theories and allegations related to a lack of transparency.  

Finally, opponents of the measure have cited the contested results from a 2022 special election for Alaska’s congressional district. In that election, Mary Peltola (D) beat former Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and Nick Begich (R) in a three-way race. Beglich was eliminated in the first round of vote tabulation because he received the fewest votes. Peltola won against Palin in the second round of vote tabulation after reallocating 2^nd choice votes from voters who ranked Beglich first. If Palin voters had instead ranked Beglich as their first choice, he likely would have won in a one-to-one race against Peltola. Critics, therefore, argue that ranked-choice voting did not prevent the two Republican candidates from splitting the party’s vote, allowing Peltola to gain a majority. In particular, critics point to 11,000 ballots that were disqualified in the second round because voters only indicated their top preference. As Sara Wolk, executive director of the Equal Vote Coalition, argued:  

[D]espite claims that the problem had been solved, the election was spoiled by Sarah Palin, flipping the seat blue rather than electing the moderate Republican who was preferred over all others according to the ballots cast. For Palin voters, ranking her 1st choice actually backfired and ironically helped elect their last choice instead. In Oregon a similar spoiler effect scenario could easily flip a seat from Blue to Red. 

Discussion 

Ranked-choice voting is an effective alternative to plurality vote systems for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting reduces the risk of spoiler effects, it allows voters to cast votes for minor party candidates without fear of “wasting their vote.” There is some evidence that minor party candidates experience more support under ranked-choice voting than under plurality vote systems. However, ranked-choice voting––like any voting system––can produce suboptimal outcomes. One standard that mathematicians and political scientists use for evaluating voting systems is the “Condorcet winner criterion.” In voting systems that pass the Condorcet winner criterion, the winning candidate will always win in a one-on-one matchup against every other candidate. Neither ranked choice voting nor Oregon’s current plurality vote system passes the Condorcet criterion, although data suggest that Condorcet winners are more likely under ranked-choice voting. According to FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting: 

Of the nearly 500 single-winner RCV elections in the United States since 2004 in which we have sufficient ballot data to assess whether the Condorcet winner won the election, all but two were won by the Condorcet winner. The two elections that did not elect the Condorcet candidate are the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont and the 2022 special election for U.S. House in Alaska. 

Alaska’s 2022 special election was controversial because the Condorcet winner, Nick Begich, did not win. Competition for first-choice votes between Begich and Palin produced a “center-squeeze effect,” which can also occur under plurality voting systems. The particular circumstance of two Republicans running against one Democrat in the same general election was the product of Alaska’s top-four primary system rather than ranked-choice voting. Unlike many other ranked-choice voting proposals across the country, the Oregon measure under consideration on the Nov. 2024 ballot would not establish a top-four open primary system.  

While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” Critics have particularly cited concerns about ballots that are “discarded” because they only indicate a first-choice vote for a candidate that was eliminated in a prior round of tabulation. Failure to rank 2^nd or 3^rd choice candidates may be due to voter confusion, but supporters of the measure suggest “[t]his can be an active choice, meaning voters who don’t rank multiple candidates aren’t necessarily lacking understanding.” On average, about 7.5% of ballots cast in ranked-choice elections fall into this category. By comparison, about 40% of voters drop off between the first and second rounds of traditional runoff elections. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. 

The post Oregon Measure 117 would allow for ranked-choice voting in federal and state elections appeared first on Reason Foundation.