HB 2210 sought to give local governments the option to implement the ranked choice voting method in local elections. The bill failed to advance to the House floor for a vote and is considered dead for this session.

AWC continues to raise concerns on ranked choice voting bill

February 6, 2026

HB 2210 to enable cities to adopt ranked choice voting if they wish to pay a series of expenses continues to advance through House committees.

The bill was heard in the House Appropriations Committee Thursday, and AWC testified to express our continued concerns about the inequitable cost burdens it creates for cities without state support.

Additionally, we expressed concern that the bill conflicts with another bill making its way through the legislature, HB 1710, which requires the Attorney General’s Office to review and approve any change to voting method by a local jurisdiction to ensure the method would not disenfranchise voters.

Under that provision, a city that adopts ranked choice voting would be automatically subject to further bureaucratic red tape and potential legal costs and challenges in addition to the costs incurred under HB 2210.

AWC appreciates the effort to grant local jurisdictions autonomy to choose a voting method that works best for residents. However, the inequitable cost burden and the inherent additional layer of bureaucracy—should both bills pass the Legislature— undermine the local empowerment created in HB 2210.

You can read more on our coverage of HB 1710.

AWC testifies on ranked choice voting bill

January 16, 2026

AWC testified in a House committee to express significant concerns with HB 2210, which would empower cities and other local jurisdictions to change voting methods.

Cities appreciate the bill sponsor’s effort to grant local jurisdictions autonomy to choose a voting method that works best for residents. However, several pieces of the bill present significant obstacles for cities that may wish to make a change to ranked choice or another voting method.

Cities’ concerns include:

• The first city in a county to shift voting methods would have to bear an inequitable cost burden of subsidizing the county elections office’s tabulation software update.
• Cities with voters in more than one county cannot switch voting methods until two of those counties contain at least one jurisdiction that has implemented the same method.
• Cities must manage the mandatory cross-jurisdictional voter education for the cities that expand into two or more counties.
• Cities must cover the transition cost for the county auditor’s office without state support.

Despite these and other concerns expressed by AWC, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, and others, the bill has advanced to executive session for committee action.

Dates to remember

HB 2210 is scheduled for executive session in the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee on Friday, January 23, at 8 am.

Legislators consider ranked choice voting bill

January 9, 2026

A legislative committee will hold a hearing this week on a bill that allows cities to change their voting method.

HB 2210, sponsored by Rep. Mia Gregerson (D–SeaTac), would give cities six years to choose a new voting method, such as ranked choice or proportional representation.

Adopting a new method would come with several requirements:

• Cities must cover the apportioned costs to the county for the instatement of a new voting system.
• Cities with voters in more than one county cannot switch voting methods until two of those counties contain at least one jurisdiction that has implemented the same method.
• Cities must cover the county auditor’s costs for providing the required voter education for the newly selected method.
• Ranked choice voting cannot be used in elections with two or fewer candidates.
• Ranked choice voting can only be used in special or general elections, not primary elections.
• When using ranked choice voting, cities will not have primaries if the general or special election will select multiple winners.
• All elections for offices using ranked choice voting must be grouped together on the ballot.

AWC appreciates the sponsor's efforts to empower city autonomy. However, there are a few pitfalls with the current bill’s language.

Requiring cities to cover the apportioned costs to the county may create imbalanced implementation expenses for each county’s first city to adopt a new method. Voter education is led by the county auditor, meaning cities will have to fulfill external requirements and cover costs of an education component with minimal control. Additionally, cities with voters in multiple counties will have to broker conversations with multiple county auditors to ensure alignment of voter education for all city residents.

Dates to remember

HB 2210 is scheduled for a hearing in the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee on Tuesday, January 13, at 1:30 pm.