A bill for an ordinance implementing instant-runoff voting. Amends the Revised…

This ordinance translates a previously approved Charter amendment on instant-runoff voting into operational law by updating the Revised Municipal Code with the rules, procedures, and definitions needed to actually run IRV elections. The Charter amendment established the legal authority for IRV; this ordinance is the technical implementation step that election administrators, candidates, and voters will actually interact with. Without such an ordinance, the Charter change would remain largely aspirational.

Instant-runoff voting, also called ranked-choice voting (RCV), asks voters to number candidates in order of preference (first choice, second choice, and so on). If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots that ranked that candidate first are redistributed to those voters' next choices. This process repeats until one candidate crosses the majority threshold. The system is already used in cities including New York, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, as well as statewide in Maine and Alaska.

The fiscal impact of implementing IRV typically involves one-time costs for updating voting equipment software, redesigning ballots, and training poll workers, plus ongoing costs for public voter education campaigns. Some jurisdictions report modest long-term savings if IRV eliminates the need for separate runoff elections, which can be expensive to administer and tend to draw lower turnout. The specific dollar figures for this municipality are not disclosed in the bill text provided.

Stakeholders affected include registered voters, candidates for municipal office, the city elections department, political parties active in local races, and civic organizations. Incumbents and challengers may need to adjust campaign strategies, since IRV can reward candidates who build broad coalitions rather than those who simply energize a narrow base. Minority communities and voter advocacy groups are often closely engaged in IRV debates because research on the system's effects on representation is still developing.

Historically, IRV has been adopted in waves dating back to the early 20th century in the United States, then largely abandoned mid-century, and revived since the 1990s through ballot initiatives. Its legal basis at the municipal level generally rests on home-rule authority, which allows cities to govern their own elections within state law. Whether state law in this jurisdiction permits or restricts municipal IRV is a background legal question that the Charter amendment process was presumably designed to resolve before this ordinance was drafted.

Two lenses on the same bill. Explain is AI analysis of the civic record. Fiscal covers budget and markets. Neither tells you how to vote.

The Denver city ordinance approved for filing on July 15, 2025 would update the Revised Municipal Code to put instant-runoff voting into practice for municipal elections. Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing just one. If no candidate wins more than half of first-choice votes, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated and those ballots are redistributed to voters' next choices, continuing until one candidate reaches a majority. The ordinance is a technical follow-through step required after a separate Charter amendment had already established IRV as city policy.

Supporters of the measure, including voter advocacy groups and some election reform organizations, argue that IRV produces winners who reflect broader community consensus and can reduce negative campaigning because candidates have an incentive to appeal to supporters of their rivals as a second choice. Proponents also note that if IRV replaces standalone runoff elections, the city could save money and avoid the characteristically low turnout that accompanies those contests. They point to cities like Minneapolis and New York as examples where the system has been administered successfully.

Opponents and skeptics raise concerns about complexity, both for voters filling out the ballot and for elections officials counting results in a transparent way. Some critics argue the upfront costs of reprogramming voting equipment and running public education campaigns are not guaranteed to pay off. A smaller group of critics contends that the empirical evidence on whether IRV actually improves representation for underrepresented groups is mixed and that the system can produce counterintuitive results in certain electoral configurations.

For ordinary Denver residents, the most immediate change would be a new type of ballot in municipal elections, asking them to number their choices rather than mark a single candidate. Whether that change makes elections feel more or less fair is something voters in other cities have disagreed about, with surveys generally showing high satisfaction but with pockets of confusion particularly among first-time users of the system. The ordinance's ultimate effect on who wins Denver elections and how broadly those winners are supported will only become clear after the first contests are run under the new rules.