WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 4707

Elections: voting procedures; ranked choice voting; prohibit. Amends 1954 PA 116 (MCL 168.1 - 168.992) by adding sec. 642e.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Parker Fairbairn and 17 co-sponsors

HB 4707 bans ranked choice voting in Michigan at state, city, and township levels, voids local laws authorizing RCV, and prohibits IRV-style or multi-candidate ballots.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
#elections:votingprocedures
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 4707

Summary — HB 4707 (2025): Prohibit ranked choice voting

Sponsor: Rep. Rachelle Smit (with listed cosponsors)
Statute amended: Adds MCL 168.642e to 1954 PA 116 (Michigan Election Law)
Status (key actions): Filed 03/12/2025; introduced 07/01/2025; passed House 08/20/2025 (Yeas 57, Nays 44; given immediate effect); referred to Committee on Elections and Ethics 08/26/2025.
House committee: Election Integrity (reported without amendment 08/19/2025)

Purpose / intent

HB 4707 would ban the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in Michigan at the state level and in cities and townships, and would nullify any local law or ordinance that authorizes RCV. The bill aims to ensure that elections in the state, and in cities and townships, use methods other than those defined as ranked choice voting.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new Section 642e to Michigan Election Law (MCL 168.642e).
  • Prohibits "this state, a city, or a township" from conducting an election using ranked choice voting (RCV).
  • Prohibits cities and townships from enacting or enforcing any law or ordinance authorizing RCV; any such law or ordinance is declared void and unenforceable.
  • Defines "ranked choice voting" to include:
    • A method allowing a voter to rank candidates in order of preference with ballots tabulated in multiple rounds after elimination of candidates until a single candidate is declared the winner (instant runoff/IRV); or
    • Any method that allows voters to vote for more candidates for an office than the total number of positions to be filled.

Who/what would be affected

  • Directly applies to: the State of Michigan, cities, and townships. (The text does not explicitly mention counties, school districts, special districts, or other local units.)
  • Municipal charter provisions or local ordinances that currently authorize or that later would authorize RCV would become void/enforceable.
  • Localities that previously voted to adopt RCV (e.g., Ferndale, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, Royal Oak, per background reporting) would be prohibited from implementing those systems if they fall under the bill’s covered local governments.

Fiscal impact

  • House Fiscal Agency analysis: no fiscal impact on the state or local units of government.

Background & context

  • The bill’s committee report summarizes how RCV (instant runoff) works and notes prior Michigan and national history: several Michigan cities previously approved RCV by voter referendum but implementation has been constrained by state law or administrative conflicts; multiple states either ban RCV or have partial adoption; Alaska and Maine use statewide RCV.

Positions reported in committee (8/19/25)

  • Testimony/support from: Save Our States Action; Honest Elections Project Action; Pure Integrity for Michigan Elections; Michigan Forward Network (indicated support).
  • Opposition from: ACLU of Michigan; Detroit Disability Power; Rank MI Vote (testified in opposition).

Procedural next steps

  • After passing the House and being given immediate effect, the bill was transmitted and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics for further consideration (likely in the Senate). Further committee action, floor votes, or enactment would be required for the bill to become law.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.