SB63 & Home Rule Resources

Here are the key facts, legal background, and resources in one place.

What SB63 Does

SB63 was signed into law on March 17, 2026. It prohibits the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting in Ohio by threatening local governments with the loss of all Local Government Fund dollars if they adopt it.

The law is significant because of the precedent sets for local governmental control. 

If the state can impose financial penalties when it disagrees with a community exercising its constitutional authority, what other local decisions could be next?

Read SB63: [link]

What Is Home Rule?

Home Rule is the constitutional authority of Ohio municipalities to govern themselves on local matters.

Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution states:

“Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government…”

That language is at the center of the debate over SB63.

Ohio's Home Rule protections give municipalities authority over matters of local self-government. That's why the issue raised by SB63 goes beyond Ranked Choice Voting. The larger question is whether the state can use financial penalties to discourage a community from exercising authority it otherwise has under the Ohio Constitution.

Read Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution: [link]

Read the Ohio Legislative Service Commission overview of Municipal Home Rule: [link]

What About Charter Cities?

Ohio charter municipalities have additional constitutional authority to structure and govern their own local affairs.

SB63 attempts to prohibit Ranked Choice Voting statewide, but the law must still operate within the limits of the Ohio Constitution.

The Ohio Secretary of State's guidance implementing SB63 acknowledges constitutional authority under Articles X and XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.

That leaves important questions about how the law applies when a charter municipality exercises its constitutional Home Rule powers.

Read the Secretary of State's SB63 directive Directive 2026-23

Why This Matters Beyond Ranked Choice Voting

You do not have to support Ranked Choice Voting to be concerned about SB63.

The larger issue is whether the state should be able to use financial penalties to pressure local communities into giving up decisions they may otherwise have the constitutional authority to make for themselves.

Home Rule affects far more than election systems.

The precedent matters.

What Have Ohio Courts Said?

Ohio courts have long recognized broad Home Rule authority over municipal elections.

In Reutener v. City of Cleveland (1923), the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Cleveland's use of the Hare system of proportional representation, an early form of Ranked Choice Voting. The Court expressly held that the system was “valid under the home rule amendment of the Ohio Constitution.”

Nearly three decades later, in State ex rel. Sherrill v. Brown (1951), the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle. The Court stated that it had “consistently held” that under Article XVIII's Home Rule provisions, a municipality may adopt its own method of selecting municipal officers even when that method differs from the election method otherwise provided by the state.

More recently, in State ex rel. Toledo v. Lucas County Board of Elections (2002), the Ohio Supreme Court stated that “municipal elections are matters of local concern” and recognized that a charter municipality may adopt a method of selecting municipal officials different from that otherwise provided by state law.

Other Ohio Supreme Court decisions have similarly recognized municipal elections as matters of local self-government.

These cases provide important legal background for understanding the Home Rule questions raised by SB63.

Ranked Choice Voting Has a History in Ohio

Ranked Choice Voting is not new to Ohio.

Five Ohio cities used forms of Ranked Choice Voting during the 20th century, and Cincinnati used proportional Ranked Choice Voting for more than three decades.

Ohio courts also considered the legality of these voting systems more than 100 years ago.

Learn more about the history of Ranked Choice Voting in Ohio

Local Control Isn't a Partisan Issue

Republicans and Democrats have both raised concerns about states overriding local communities to prohibit Ranked Choice Voting.

When North Dakota considered restrictions on Ranked Choice Voting, Republican Governor Doug Burgum defended local control, saying:

“If we truly believe in limited government and local control, we can begin by honoring the boundaries, intent and spirit of home rule charters…”

Here in Ohio, Democratic Rep. Ashley Bryant Bailey of Cincinnati opposed SB63 on Home Rule grounds, arguing that local governments should be able to make these decisions for themselves.

Similar concerns about state overreach and local control have been raised by lawmakers in other states.

The question is not simply whether someone supports Ranked Choice Voting.

The question is whether local communities should be allowed to make that decision for themselves.