Ohio just banned ranked choice voting. And yes, a Democrat helped do it.

The Dayton Daily News ran a front-page story on Monday Mar 2nd ^[1]about Ohio’s ranked choice voting ban, Senate Bill 63, and I was quoted because I testified against it. The House passed the bill 63-27, sending it to Governor Mike DeWine. I hope DeWine shows some spine and veto's it.

Here’s the part Ohio Democrats should be embarrassed to explain to voters: SB 63 is “bipartisan.” The bill’s sponsors are Republican Senator Theresa Gavarone and Democratic Senator Bill DeMora.

Let that sink in. In a state where turnout is sickly, trust is collapsing, and most people feel trapped between two bad options, Columbus responded by outlawing one of the few reforms that could increase voter participation and competition.

I don't believe ranked choice voting alone is the solution, I think it needs a true, verified Voter Information System to go with it. and I've laid out my concept for a "Dating App for Democracy ^[2]" and think it would revolutionize elections (as well as cut costs and frustration.

This bill is not about election integrity. It’s about control.

Supporters are selling the ban as protecting “one person, one vote” and faster election results. That’s a bunch of hooey.

SB 63 is not just a ban, it’s a threat.

Ohio’s own legislative analysis spells it out: local governments could still theoretically adopt ranked choice voting, but the state would financially punish them by cutting off Local Government Fund distributions until they back down.

That is not “clarity.” That's coercion, it's something you'd hear out of Don Corleone.

This is not about whether ranked choice tabulation is “confusing.” It’s about something much simpler: Ohio’s political class does not want Ohioans experimenting with more choice. Reality is, it was invented long before computers ^[3], which make it easy peasy.

My testimony was simple: SB 63 legislates the problem into permanence.

Ranked choice voting is not magic. It does not fix gerrymandering. It does not cure corruption. It does not guarantee good candidates.

But it does address one of the most common reasons people check out of elections: the “spoiler” fear and the forced-choice mindset.

How long have I been talking about this? Here's a Pecha Kucha presentation from 2011 at Yellow Cab.

When you can vote for who you actually want, and still list a backup choice, you stop treating elections like hostage negotiations. You reduce the incentive to vote against someone, and increase the incentive to vote for someone.

That is why I testified that if the goal is higher trust and participation, SB 63 moves the opposite direction. The Dayton Daily News quoted me on that, and I stand by it.

Here's what I submitted:

And then there’s Bill DeMora.

If you are wondering why a Democrat would co-sponsor a ban on voter choice, the answer isn’t complicated. Bill DeMora is not a reformer. He’s a party mechanic. The Dayton Daily News described him as a paid Democratic Party operative.

I’ve seen this movie up close.

In 2022, I showed up to a county Democratic Party meeting ready to run for chair. I was told I could not run because I was not a precinct captain anymore. Later, I documented that the exclusion being used against people was not supported by law ^[4], and I pointed out DeMora’s role in the party apparatus that spreads and enforces these kinds of gatekeeping rules, until it becomes inconvenient and they change their tune.

So when I see DeMora’s name on SB 63, it fits. This is what machine politics looks like in 2026:

• Talk about democracy.
• Avoid competition.
• Restrict ballot access.
• Preempt local experimentation.
• Use state money as a weapon.
• Keep the insiders in charge.

You can call it “party unity.” I call it fear of voters.

Ohio’s real democracy problem is bigger than ranked choice.

Here is the honest list Ohio never wants to debate:

• Most Ohioans do not vote in party primaries, yet political parties control key election machinery and gatekeeping both at the Board of Elections- and by having the power to put new puppets in office if their existing puppet resigns (this is how Russ Joseph got to be both Treasurer and Clerk of Courts without a single vote of the public).
• Independents face barriers that make “choice” theoretical instead of real.
• “Home rule” is treated like a religion until a community wants to try a voting reform, then the state suddenly finds its spine.
• Citizens who try to enforce accountability run into a system designed to exhaust them. (my whole experience trying to remove Mike Foley via Quo Warranto).

And now we can add another item: Ohio will ban a voting method that nobody is even using here, just to make sure nobody ever tries.

That should tell you everything about what the people in power think of you.

What happens next

SB 63 is headed to Governor DeWine for signature.

If the governor signs it, Ohio will have chosen the most cynical path possible: protecting the two-party pipeline by outlawing competition-enhancing reforms, while pretending it’s about simplicity and speed.

If anyone wants to claim Democrats are “protecting democracy,” they can start by explaining why one of their own helped write the ban.

Because from where I’m sitting, SB 63 is not the defense of democracy. It’s the defense of the back room.

As a side note while talking about the back room

If the political parties were actually about organizing voters to elect members of their parties, they wouldn't endorse in primaries.

And the Dems in Ohio sure love to do this (which may be why they keep losing).

Democrats love to talk about “letting voters decide,” then turn around and try to pre decide contested primaries with party endorsements. The hypocrisy is structural: most county parties can barely fill their own precinct committee seats through election. So a small cabal effectively selects the people who select the endorsement committee, which then tries to steer the tiny slice of Democrats who actually vote in primaries. That is not voter empowerment. It is insider curation dressed up as party “unity.” And the fact that many precinct captains are in patronage jobs in Montgomery County, tilts the whole playing field: vote for your bosses friends or you lose your job.

Worse, this practice scares away viable candidates before the ballot is even set. The message is simple: if you are not anointed by the screening committee, you are running uphill against your own party’s money, volunteers, slate cards, and whisper network. For anyone with a job, a family, and donors who want to invest rationally, that is enough to decide not to run at all. Endorsements do not just influence choices. They reduce choices. And when the endorsement rule is informal or opaque, it is even more chilling: you are not simply competing against another Democrat, you are competing against an insider process you cannot see and may not be able to challenge.

I have seen this up close. I have been in front of the Montgomery County Democratic Party screening committee multiple times over the last 30 plus years, and the second question they used to ask was if we do not endorse you, will you drop out? That is not about identifying the strongest nominee. That is about clearing the field. It turns a primary into a controlled exercise where the party tests whether candidates will submit to the slate, rather than whether they can earn support from voters.

And we have a concrete, local example of how this plays out. In the 2013 Dayton City Commission cycl ^[5]e, the MCDP endorsements immediately narrowed the field. Darryl Fairchild announced he was ending his campaign after failing to win the Democratic endorsement, and shifted to supporting the endorsed candidate, Jeff Mims. That is the endorsement machine doing exactly what it is designed to do: consolidate early, discourage competition, and convert the primary from a voter driven selection into an insider managed outcome. Once he'd "waited his turn" as the saying goes, they then plopped Chris Shaw in ahead of him.

When I pulled the governing documents, the contrast across the OH 10 region was telling. The Ohio Democratic Party has a formal pre primary endorsement regime that defaults to neutrality in contested or open seat situations unless “extraordinary circumstances” are invoked, while also giving incumbents a built in path to endorsement. Note, you can't find it on their site, it's only through a google search. So much for transparency. It may not even be the current document- this one is still attributed to Liz Walters- the former chair with no plan ^[6]. (there's a video of her incompetence being presented to the MCDP in the post)

Greene County explicitly allows pre primary endorsements for local and district races with a two thirds vote, while also warning endorsements should not be used to discourage “equally qualified” candidates, which is exactly what endorsements tend to do in practice. In 2022, after winning a 4 way primary and as the nominated Dem, this party took a $200 donation from my campaign at their 4th of July picnic, but wouldn't let me speak. So much for the will of the voters.

Montgomery County centralizes endorsement power in its executive committee and bakes in an incumbent “presumption,” rebuttable only by a supermajority.

Then there is Butler County, where the chair’s honesty is admirable, and also revealing. Butler’s constitution/bylaws contemplates endorsements through a screening and vote process requiring a 60% affirmative vote. I had to request it, it's not posted on their site.

Yet the chair says the party has been operating under a separate “resolution” to avoid endorsing candidates in contested primaries, and that this policy is not codified in the actual constitution and bylaws. That gap is the problem: rules you cannot easily read are not really rules. They are discretion. And discretion is exactly how a party becomes a back room club, even when everyone involved has good intentions. But when I was at their meeting a few weeks ago, they CLEARLY said it several times- "No endorsements in primaries."

Here is the punchline. Premature endorsements do not create unity. They create factions, grudges, and a thinner bench. They tell good candidates to wait their turn or go away. They turn primary voters into an audience watching insiders decide. And because primary turnout is already a sliver, the endorsement machine ends up amplifying the preferences of the smallest, most connected group in the party. They also waste candidates money. Instead of putting together candidates forums, and a party mailer with all the choices to most likely dem voters- instead, every candidate is burning money to run against other dems, money that should be available to run against the real opponent- the Republicans.

But, our party leaders have no clue. They don't build voters lists, share their discounted mailing indicia, create momentum, they try to control outcomes, and have been failing for way too long.

A party that stays neutral in contested primaries is more powerful, not less. It keeps credibility with voters, it keeps relationships with every candidate and their supporters after the primary, and it avoids burning bridges it will need in November. Real unity is what you build after voters pick a nominee, not what you impose beforehand by pressuring candidates to drop out and narrowing choices. If Democrats want to win more than arguments about process, they need to stop treating primaries like a slate making exercise and start treating them like the democratic competition they claim to believe in.