Nothing undermines confidence in elections quite like discovering they can be compromised by foreign billionaires or botched altogether through complex schemes like ranked-choice voting.
This year, legislatures across the country took aim at both of these urgent threats to election integrity, as outlined by a recent report from Honest Elections Project. Altogether, eight states closed a critical legal loophole allowing foreign billionaires to flood ballot measure campaigns with foreign dark money. Meanwhile, six more states banned ranked-choice voting, the most legislative bans in a single year. In other words, conservative states have made 2025 a banner year for election reform.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn how vulnerable our elections are to foreign influence. Federal law forbids foreign nationals from donating to candidates or political parties yet offers no such protection for state or local ballot measures. This means that a foreign billionaire cannot influence a particular race, but he can spend millions to pass a constitutional amendment that rewrites the rules of the entire election system.
That loophole has been a gift to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss. According to the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, Wyss has directed roughly $280 million into the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has simultaneously spent more than $130 million in foreign-tied funds into ballot campaigns in 26 states. As shocking as these figures are, they likely represent the tip of the iceberg. After all, the same loophole can just as easily be abused by foreign nationals doing the bidding of China and Russia.
Fortunately, conservative states are taking action to ensure that ballot measures are no longer a Trojan Horse for foreign interference. After Ohio led the way in 2024, eight states this year—Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wyoming—enacted new laws to ban foreign nationals and the groups they finance from funding ballot measure campaigns. Even Kentucky’s Democratic governor signed the bill into law, proof that defending elections from foreign influence should not be a partisan proposition.
That hasn’t stopped many on the left from fighting to keep these loopholes open for purely partisan gain. Marc Elias, Democrats’ top election lawyer, went to court in Ohio in 2024 and again in Kansas this year to block these bans. He lost both times, once in front of an Obama-appointed judge. States clearly have the authority to ban foreign funding, and every state should.
The same is true of ranked-choice voting, and 2025 was an incredible year in the ongoing fight to stop its spread.
Under ranked-choice voting, voters are asked to rank multiple candidates. Ballots are counted in rounds as losing candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed. If a voter fails to rank enough candidates, the ballot is “exhausted” and thrown out. Candidates can win the most first-place votes but lose the election. Delays are inevitable; Alaska’s ranked-choice voting tabulation does not even begin until 15 days after Election Day. In California, a tabulation error once led to the wrong candidate being certified. Ranked-choice voting turns what should be a straightforward election into a complicated black box.
Fortunately, the public has seen the problems with this system from the start. In 2024, ranked-choice voting advocates spent nearly $100 million dollars on ballot measures promoting the scheme in six states. All failed. Only the District of Columbia adopted it, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Between 2022 and 2024, 11 states banned ranked-choice voting. And this year, six more – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming – acted to make the scheme illegal. And in Utah, lawmakers allowed a failed pilot program to expire, meaning ranked-choice voting will come to an end there, too.
As extraordinary as this progress is, conservatives must not become complacent. States like Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, Montana, and Arizona have all seen significant amounts of foreign-tied money pumped into ballot issue campaigns, but so far have not acted. And progressives remain committed to pushing ranked-choice voting, especially after witnessing the scheme elevate a Democratic Socialist in New York. Ranked-choice voting lobbyists are working legislatures nationwide, and activists are already gathering signatures for another ballot measure in the presidential battleground of Michigan.
That should serve as a warning. When it comes to securing our elections, the job is never done. This was a banner year for election integrity. Conservative leaders must keep the momentum going in 2026 and beyond.
Arizona Republican Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08) announced on Monday that he will co-lead the Preventing Ranked Choice Corruption Act with Rep. Nick Begich (AK-At Large). The legislation looks to amend the Help America Vote Act by banning the “confusing and disenfranchising voting scheme” practice of Ranked Choice Voting nationwide.
Hamadeh’s press release explained that Ranked Choice Voting, also sold-as instant-runoff voting as, is a “flawed process,” which “allows for a majority party to be split between preferred candidates, thus allowing the minority candidate a pathway to victory- which would never occur in a regular election.” Under the system, voters are able to sequentially rank each candidate. If none of the candidates claims a majority on the first round, the votes are redistributed based on the voters’ second choices and so-on down the line until a majority emerges, essentially eliminating the possibility of a plurality vote winning an election.
🚨NEW🚨
Congressmen Hamadeh and Begich Lead Effort to END Corrupt Ranked Choice Voting Scheme on Federal Level
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) April 29, 2025
In the text of the proposed bill, it states simply, “A State may not carry out any election for Federal office using a system of ranked choice voting under which each voter ranks the candidates for the office in the order of the voter’s preference.’’
Rep. Hamadeh said in a statement, “The same Democrat pawns who support allowing non-citizen voting without voter ID and same day voter registration also want to turn our democracy into a rank choice voting scheme. Their motives are clear – they do not want to help Americans vote – they only want to help corrupt politicians win.”
He added, “In Arizona, we see tremendous amounts of liberal out-of-state dollars pour into our state every year to try to alter our election processes. Fortunately, our citizens see through the lies of expensive glossy mailings and reject Ranked Choice Voting.”
In a corresponding statement, Rep. Begich said, “The nation does not need more uncertainty and confusion injected into the federal election process. ‘One person, one vote’ is a proven tried-and-true method that is easy to understand, easy to audit, and quick to report. Experiments with our national election systems risk disenfranchisement of voters and lead to outcomes that do not represent the true will of the American people.”
Ranked Choice voting is currently the law of the land in Alaska, and Begich is intimately familiar with its problems. According to The Alaska Beacon, his own race went to a second round, despite his taking 8,000 more votes than his opponent in the first round with164,117 votes total. Alaska voted to keep the system in place by a narrow margin for Ballot Measure 2, barely defeating reforms to kill the practice by 664 votes. In a 2023 op-ed, Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky called Ranked Choice Voting “a confusing, chaotic ‘reform.’” Spakovsky warned, “It fundamentally changes the election process, effectively disenfranchises voters, and allows marginal candidates not supported by a majority of voters to be elected.
“It is a confusing and opaque process that robs voters of the ability to re-educate and re-examine the top two vote-getting candidates in a run-off election when one candidate does not initially win a majority, and it diminishes the ability of voters to make informed, knowledgeable choices of who would best represent them.“
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has filed an official complaint with Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell requesting they take legal action on the almost 40,000 duplicate signatures that were uncovered during the legal challenges to Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated in the November election with almost 60% of the vote share.
During the unsuccessful legal challenge against Prop 140’s fraudulent signature gathering in April Smith v. Fontes, a court-appointed Special Master found that, of the original 41,387 pairs of signatures challenged, a total of 37,657 or approximately 99%, were in fact duplicates. Removing these duplications would have driven the proposition 3,300 signatures short of the of the minimum qualification to appear on the Nov. 5th ballot.
The Special Master, Retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly, found that “Plaintiffs had proved by clear and convincing evidence that 37,657 signatures were duplicates— that the same person had signed more than once.”
Indeed the evidence showed that 253 people signed the petitions five times or more and one individual signed no less than 15 times.
In a letter to Mayes and Mitchell, Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club wrote, “Double or even triple-signing the same initiative petition over the span of several months may well evince merely carelessness or forgetfulness. Signing one’s name five, ten, or even fifteen times, however, is not susceptible to that excuse.”
“There is certainly, at the very least, ample reason to believe that the individuals identified in Exhibit A knowingly violated Arizona law. I accordingly request that your respective offices open an investigation and pursue all appropriate criminal charges.”
You can read the complaint here. You can see the exhibit of duplicate signatures here.
In August, the AZFEC criticized the group behind Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair PAC,” with a strong condemnation that the group, which is sought to import “California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.”
On Nov. 5, Oakland, California residents voted overwhelmingly to recall the city’s far-left mayor Democratic Mayor Sheng Thao, who was elected two years ago using ranked-choice voting. Since then, she has been blamed for increasing crime and disorder in the city. This was the first successful recall of a mayor in Oakland’s history, with 61.6% of voters in favor of removing Mayor Thao and only 38.4% opposed.
The recall wasn’t just an indictment of the failures of progressive governance; it was an indictment of ranked-choice voting, or RCV.
Thao’s win in 2022 was made possible by RCV. The novel election system creates winners out of losers by allowing a candidate who received more second-place (or third-place, fourth-place, etc.) votes to win even if another candidate had more first-place votes. This is exactly how Thao squeaked out a 677-vote win.
Her opponent, former Democratic Oakland City Councilmen Loren Taylor, received the most first-place votes but was under 50 percent in the initial round. Because of that, Thao was able to win in the ninth round. And while she had 50.3 percent of the remaining votes, that total was just 45.6 percent of the votes cast in the first round (11,787 “exhausted” ballots were excluded by the final round).
Taylor criticized the complex election process in his concession speech. “Ranked-choice voting as it is isn’t working,” Taylor told a reporter. He noted the high number of discarded ballots, pointing out that this went against the promises made by advocates when they convinced the city to adopt RCV.
Since then, the quality of life for Oakland residents has decreased dramatically. Reports of violent incidents increased 21% last year compared to 2022, and robberies jumped 38%. Instead of aggressively targeting violent gang members, Mayor Thao focused on “ceasefires” and misleading crime statistics to take the heat off herself.
Thao’s entire mayorship can be blamed on the complexities of ranked-choice voting. A system that allows a candidate to win by receiving the most second place votes and disenfranchises voters by eliminating their ballots should be outlawed in state, local and federal elections.
One of the last mayors elected before Oakland made the switch to RCV was former California Gov. Jerry Brown — a ranked-choice voting critic. As governor, he vetoed a bill to allow all cities in the Golden State to use RCV. And while he was mayor of Oakland, Brown reduced crime, grew the city’s population and expanded charter schools, a far cry from what Thao has done.
Last June, Thao’s home was raided by the FBI. Her failures led to the campaign “Oakland United to recall Thao,” which collected more than 40,000 signatures to initiate a recall. The recall campaign was supported by the Oakland Police Officers’ Association, former Democratic Mayor Libby Schaaf, prominent local business leaders, and even Elon Musk.
Ranked-choice voting is promoted as a way to elect popular, moderate candidates. Yet before it was adopted, Oakland actually had moderate, effective mayors. What RCV actually gave Oakland was an unpopular mayor who is now the first to be recalled in the city’s history. There is talk that Oakland’s next move will be to repeal ranked-choice voting. If not, they could end up right back where they started.
Harry Roth is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the director of outreach at Save Our States, where he manages the Stop RCV Coalition.
How do you waste $15 million? Just ask the folks over at the Make Elections Fair Committee. Last week, their insane attempt to force a California-style elections system of ranked choice voting and jungle primaries went down in flames. Prop 140 failed miserably with nearly 60 percent of the electorate voting “No.” And it wasn’t for lack of funding.
With a huge amount of money coming from the pockets of out-of-state billionaires, the Make Elections Fair Committee spent at least $15 million—giving them a 20:1 spending advantage. That’s right. For every $1 spent trying to defeat the initiative, the Prop 140 committee spent $20 trying to pass it! And they still lost by a wide margin!
That’s legendary. If any business idea ever failed that badly, it would be banished and never spoken of again. And that’s exactly what should happen with ranked choice voting and its ugly cousin jungle primaries (which was already overwhelmingly rejected by Arizona voters back in 2012)…
