SB 383 — Ranked‑Choice Voting for Presidential Nomination Contests & Certification of Election‑Supporting Technology
Status / key dates
- Introduced: February 14, 2025
- Assigned: Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee
- Effective date in bill text: October 1, 2025
- Authorization to use ranked‑choice voting (RCV) begins: 2028 statewide primary (if the State Board elects to use it)
- Required report due to Governor and General Assembly: January 1, 2029
Purpose
- Authorize the State Board of Elections (SBE) to use ranked‑choice voting for political‑party contests to nominate a candidate for President of the United States, beginning with the 2028 statewide primary, and to require SBE regulation and oversight of “election‑supporting technology.”
What the bill would do — main provisions
1. Ranked‑Choice Voting (RCV)
- Defines RCV as a method where voters rank candidates by preference and tabulation reflects those preferences.
- Authorizes (not mandates) the SBE — notwithstanding other election law provisions — to use RCV for presidential nomination contests beginning with the 2028 statewide primary.
- If the SBE elects to use RCV, it must:
- Develop and pay for a voter education campaign about RCV and share materials with local boards.
- Submit a report (due Jan 1, 2029) reviewing RCV use in the 2028 primary and recommending whether/how to implement or expand RCV in future elections; the report must be posted on the SBE website and distributed to local boards.
- Certification and oversight of election‑supporting technology
- Defines “election‑supporting technology” to include equipment/technology used to administer elections such as electronic pollbooks, risk‑limiting audit tools, and software used to prepare/present/report voting results. (Explicitly excludes voting systems.)
- Requires SBE to:
- Adopt regulations for the review, certification, and decertification of election‑supporting technology.
- Adopt requirements for certified election‑supporting technology and periodically review/evaluate such technology.
Who is affected
- State Board of Elections: may implement RCV, must run voter education, must develop and adopt certification regulations, and must produce the post‑implementation report.
- Local boards of elections/counties: will receive and use SBE education materials and likely bear some implementation/tabulation and training costs if RCV is used.
- Voters: in the affected 2028 primary (and any future elections where RCV is adopted) — will experience a different ballot format for presidential nomination contests.
- Vendors and vendors of election‑supporting technology: subject to new SBE certification/regulation processes.
- Small businesses: minimal aggregate effect per the fiscal analysis.
Fiscal impact (summary from Fiscal Note)
- No effect on revenues.
- If RCV is used in the 2028 primary, estimated increased expenditures:
- State general fund: $501,000 (FY2027) and $1,883,000 (FY2028).
- Local governments (collective): $100,000 (FY2027) and $1.7 million (FY2028).
- Primary cost drivers: modifications to the state election management system, development of RCV tabulation software, voter education campaign, and local implementation/training. The Fiscal Note assumes development work beginning FY2027 and major costs occurring in FY2028.
Procedural notes / limitations
- Use of RCV is discretionary — the SBE “may” use it (not a mandatory change to all primaries).
- The bill’s RCV provision is limited in scope to contests for presidential nominations in party primaries (as written).
- The bill treats election‑supporting technology separately from the statutory certification regime for voting systems; voting‑system certification requirements remain governed by existing law.
Source documents summarized: bill text and fiscal note describing RCV authorization, voter education and reporting requirements, definitions and certification duties regarding election‑supporting technology, and the estimated FY2027–FY2028 fiscal impacts.
