Boston’s failures in last week’s election have prompted concerns around whether its Election Department, now under investigation by the Secretary of State’s office, would be able to handle a “dramatic” shift to a ranked-choice voting system.
Opponents of a Council proposal that seeks to overhaul the city’s election process with a ranked-choice voting system, where voters would rank their favorite candidates, have seized onto last week’s ballot shortages as proof that Boston is not equipped to handle “sweeping changes” to its electoral system.
“Ranked-choice voting is deeply flawed and should be kept far from Boston,” MassGOP spokesman Logan Trupiano said. “Before even considering sweeping changes to our electoral process, Boston must first prove it can manage a basic election.
“Mayor Wu must be held accountable for this complete failure,” Trupiano added. “With the Secretary of State’s office right here in Boston, how could such a blunder happen? Despite 766,200 ballots printed and delivered, polling locations across the city ran out of ballots. It is absolutely unacceptable.”
Secretary of State William Galvin launched an investigation into the Boston Election Department and is considering receivership after a series of Election Day snafus left polling places in multiple neighborhoods short on ballots, reflecting what he described as “incompetence” on the part of city elections officials.
Galvin placed the Boston Election Department under receivership in 2006, after similar ballot shortages hampered that year’s November state election, in which former Gov. Deval Patrick was elected.
The Secretary of State’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Mayor Michelle Wu last week initially blamed the ballot shortages on heavy turnout. Her office later pivoted to saying there was a “miscalculation in formulas to set ballot deliveries for precincts that would be processed ahead of Election Day.”
The city’s election failures came amid a City Council push, led by the body’s President Ruthzee Louijeune, for a switch to ranked-choice voting — a process Boston Election Department officials have already said would create operational challenges, additional costs, and prolong the amount of time it would take to count ballots on election night.
A spokesperson for Mayor Wu said in a statement the “City of Boston Elections Commission will always carry out their charge to administer free and fair elections under the laws that define election procedures in the Commonwealth.”
“We continue to work closely with the Secretary of State’s office and to conduct our internal review to identify needed improvements for the most efficient and effective ways to ensure full access to the ballot,” the Wu spokesperson said.
Gregory Maynard, a political consultant and executive director of Boston Policy Institute, said, however, that the city’s handling of last week’s election “doesn’t bode well for Boston’s version of ranked-choice voting.”
“One of the major advantages of Cambridge, Massachusetts’ version of ranked-choice voting is that it doesn’t require a preliminary election, so the city can focus on just the November Election Day,” Maynard said. “The plan Boston is pursuing still has a preliminary and adds all this complexity to the actual ballot counting in November.”
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said “ranked-choice voting doesn’t deliver on its promises,” and “only elects a winner by eliminating ballots.”
“Even if Boston could hold its elections without controversy, ranked-choice voting is a bad idea,” Craney said.
Larry DiCara, an attorney and former city council president, called ranked-choice voting a “very interesting idea from very well-intentioned people who do not necessarily understand how complicated voting is for a lot of people, and how even more complicated it would be.”
“I think that it’s a great thing for highly intelligent people who can figure it out, and for people, who English is not their first language … I think it’s confusing,” DiCara said. “You’ve got to be careful when you’re running elections because people’s franchise is at stake, and the simpler we make it for people, the better.”
A request for comment from the council president, Louijeune, on whether last week’s election mishaps raised concerns about the Election Department’s ability to handle ranked-choice voting was not returned.
Louijeune put forward the proposal in June as a way to “modernize how we vote and how every vote is heard in our elections.” The Herald reported last month on a similar statewide ballot push that is underway. A prior ballot question was defeated by Massachusetts voters in a 2020 referendum.
Some of her colleagues, however, did not shy away from weighing in.
“After last week’s failure in leadership by the Boston Election Department, it’s obvious Boston is unable to move forward with a dramatic shift to ranked-choice voting,” City Councilor Ed Flynn said. “I’m against a change from the current system to a more complicated and confusing ranked-choice voting.
“We need to refocus our efforts on neighborhood services and the delivery of basic city services, including conducting an effective Election Day operation,” Flynn added. “We also need a dramatic change in leadership at the Election Department, including the implementation of a state receiver, to ensure this failure never takes place again.”
Councilor Erin Murphy, who last week co-wrote a letter to Galvin’s office with Flynn pushing for receivership and co-sponsored a Council hearing order on “voter accessibility and election preparedness” with Louijeune, raised similar doubts.
“We’re a long way from ranked-choice voting being implemented in Boston, and my immediate focus is ensuring that every voter who wants to participate in our elections can do so without barriers,” Murphy said. “Right now, my priority is to address critical issues within our current system before we even consider introducing a major shift like ranked-choice voting, which I don’t believe the Election Department is equipped to handle at this time.”
