Albuquerque Voters Demand Instant Runoffs, But Council Rejects Change

Local coalition says Albuquerque voters back instant runoffs and questions council's rejection amid budget cuts and confusion claims.

Apr. 19, 2026 at 7:19am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A warm, cinematic painting depicting a solitary ballot box or voting booth set against a dimly lit urban backdrop, with soft diagonal sunlight casting deep shadows across the scene, conveying a sense of quiet contemplation around the city's electoral future.As Albuquerque debates the merits of ranked choice voting, the city's political landscape reflects a nostalgic, yet unsettled, mood around the future of its electoral process.Albuquerque Today

A debate over ranked choice voting in Albuquerque has reignited calls for instant runoffs and greater council accountability. A local coalition, NM Voters First, says Albuquerque voters strongly support instant runoffs, which could save the city millions in runoff election costs. However, the city council has rejected the measure, citing voter confusion despite overwhelming public support for the change.

Why it matters

Albuquerque is a diverse city that could benefit from the increased representation and voter turnout associated with instant runoffs. But the city council has prioritized the interests of well-financed consultants over the financial health of the city and the will of the people.

The details

At a recent rally, over 60 supporters stood in solidarity for instant runoffs, and 54 people spoke in favor of the change at a city council meeting, compared to only 10 against it. However, the council and media have claimed the public was split on the issue. The council has cited voter confusion as the reason to reject instant runoffs, despite research showing RCV is easy to understand. The current system has also cost the city $1.8 million in unnecessary runoff elections, at a time when Albuquerque is facing a $35 million budget shortfall.

  • On April 6, NM Voters First cohosted a rally where more than 60 supporters stood in solidarity for instant runoffs.
  • Later on April 6, 54 people stayed until nearly midnight to speak in favor of instant runoffs at a city council meeting.

The players

NM Voters First

A local coalition that has been advocating for instant runoffs in Albuquerque.

Albuquerque City Council

The city council that has rejected the measure for instant runoffs, citing voter confusion despite overwhelming public support.

Rio Grande Foundation

A well-funded organization that the coalition says has assumed power over elected officials and dictated votes, while ignoring the voices of actual residents.

Councilor Dan Lewis

A city councilor who claimed that education shouldn't be necessary if ranked choice voting is easy to understand, which the coalition says is false.

Councilor Joaquín Baca

A city councilor who declined multiple efforts for a meeting with the NM Voters First coalition.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This blatant disregard for the facts is a slap in the face to the community.”

— Sila Avcil, Cofounder and executive director of NM Voters First

“Councilor Dan Lewis claims that education shouldn't be necessary if RCV is easy to understand, which is false. Any change requires public education.”

— Sila Avcil, Cofounder and executive director of NM Voters First

“Instant runoffs are a nonpartisan issue where one person still gets one vote. The only difference is that it takes just one election to get the job done, which saves the city from the financial catastrophe of second elections.”

— Sila Avcil, Cofounder and executive director of NM Voters First

What’s next

The NM Voters First coalition says they remain happy to talk to anyone about the facts and will continue to have meaningful conversations across the city. They encourage everyone to visit rcvnm.com to view correct information and see why Albuquerque can no longer afford to wait for this change.

The takeaway

This debate highlights the disconnect between Albuquerque's city council and the will of its diverse residents. While the council prioritizes the interests of well-financed consultants, the community is demanding a more efficient and representative electoral system through instant runoffs, which could save the city millions. The council's rejection of this change, despite overwhelming public support, raises questions about their accountability to the people they serve.