Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The case for ranked-choice voting in Texas

Opinion

Texas primary voting

Texas held its primaries March 1. In some parts of the state, voters will be asked to participate in a runoff election in May, but few will likely show up at the poll.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Wasserstrum and Richards are the chair and vice chair, respectively, of Ranked Choice Voting for Texas.

On March 1, only 17.4 percent of registered Texans went to the polls to vote in our midterm primaries. On May 24, we will participate in an unnecessary party primary runoff election. Pandemic or not, runoff voting turnout has always been historically low and campaigning for a runoff between the primary and general elections can be costly. Imagine the effort and money that could be saved if a runoff election weren’t required.

Many local elections come down to a runoff, which requires people to make the effort to get out and vote a second time. But double the effort and twice the cost often lead to half the participation. Aren’t you tired of having to go to the polls twice to determine the winner of an election?


But there’s a better method for the Lone Star State: ranked-choice voting. RCV allows voters to rank their candidates in order of preference. If there is no majority winner after counting first choices, the race is decided by an "instant runoff." The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate “No. 1” will have their votes counted for their next choice. This process continues until a candidate wins with 50 percent plus one of the votes.

We began to advocate for RCV in Texas because we saw the runoff problem over and over again, from two-round primaries to local elections. In Houston, the 2015 and 2019 municipal races offered stark examples of how our current runoff system fails voters. In the 2015 election, 52,000 fewer voters cast ballots in the decisive mayoral runoff than in the general election. In 2019, voter turnout in the runoff was even lower than 2015 – and a full 15 percent lower than the general. In both these cases, runoff turnout hovered at about 20 percent of all registered voters.

When all is said and done, candidates elected by a small, shrinking fraction of voters become representatives for all of us.

The fight for RCV is even further along in our capital, Austin, where voters overwhelmingly passed a 2021 ballot measure to try ranked-choice voting for its City Council and mayoral races. This came after City Council runoff elections in December 2020, which cost Austin taxpayers $162,000 while a mere 10 percent of voters turned out. Right now, even local use of RCV isn’t allowed under Texas law, so our next step is pushing our state lawmakers to allow this voter-approved measure to take effect.

Just like winning RCV elections, we hope that the key to cities and the Legislature adopting RCV is building a broad coalition. As activists, it’s our job to engage and educate voters, candidates, and representatives on why and how RCV is the better choice for Texas. In such a diverse state, there are many reasons.

For conservatives, the two-round runoff system goes against values of small government and fiscal responsibility. Right now, we’re spending millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for elections where few voters participate. Holding a second election also increases the risk to election integrity.

And the second election is a particularly heavy burden on our military voters, many of whom are sending their ballots from deployment overseas. Their ballots often arrive after the deadline. In fact, six other states already use RCV for military and overseas voters.

Additionally, more women and candidates of color run in RCV elections – and win. With RCV, the fear of “ vote splitting ” is eliminated, meaning that multiple candidates of color or female candidates can run for office without fear that they will poach votes away from other candidates with similar identities.

As we make the case, we’re buoyed by real-life examples of ranked-choice voting working in city after city across the nation. It is the fastest-growing bipartisan voting reform in the country, and has now reached 55 jurisdictions and 10 million voters across the country. States like Maine and Alaska use RCV in all federal elections, and in 2021, RCV was used in high-profile elections across the spectrum, nominating candidates as different as Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and New York Mayor Eric Adams.

RCV is a proven solution to the problems we face here in Texas. Now, it is our job as activists and voters to make it a reality in the Lone Star State.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less