Previous 30 / 61 Next

hh. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, maintains a running account ofall cases of voter fraud across the country dating back to the early 1980's. That database includes only one case from Montana. 09/09120 Trial Tr. (McCool) at 372:7-373:1; Pl. Ex. 23 at 1l ii. The one case of confirmed voter fraud in Montana since the Heritage Foundation began keeping statistics involved a man in Liberty County on July 26,2011 pleading guilty to Limits on Voting fughts after he voted his ex-wife's ballot without her permission. See a/so 09109/20 TialTr. (McCool) at 372:7-373;Pl.Ex. 23 at 11. jj. There is no evidence ofthe integrity ofelections being at risk in Montana. 09110120 Trial Tr. (Corson) at 504:25-505:4; Mangan Dep. Tr. 31:9-21 (only one instance of alleged voter fraud); Cook Dep. Tr. 20:6-20; 2l:3-12; 25:21-26:6 (aware of no instances kk. There ofvoter fraud); 09110120 Trial Tr. (Hood) at 639:25-640:15. is no evidence of voter intimidation or voter harassment in Montana. 09110/20Tnil Tr. (Corson) at510:12-24; Mangan Dep. Tr. 34:15-14,35:3-5, 35:813, 35: 1 5-l 8, 35:20-21, 36:2-9. ll. There is no evidence of ballot tampering in Montana. 09110120 Trial Tr. (Corson) at 5 mm. 12:2-4 ; Mangan Dep. Tr. 3 6 : I 0- I 4; 36 :17 -22; 37 :2- | 6; 37 : | 9. There is no evidence ofdeceptive election practices or illegal consideration from voting in Montana. Mangan Dep. Tr. 37:21-38:16. 29. Implementation of BIPA. a. BIPA is codified at Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-701 et seq. 30

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Western Native Voice v. Stapleton

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Ballot Interference Prevention Act violates the Plaintiff’s right to vote, right to free speech, right to association, and due process.

Alleged Acts: Montana presents unique challenges as the fourth largest state in terms of land size, but the third least densely populated. Consequently, most voters utilize the absentee voting procedure. Montana also is home to seven Reservations, intersecting with sixteen different counties. These Reservations each have unique challenges to voting including a lack of home mail delivery, transportation that does not run on a regular route, taking administrative leave to drive in groups to polling stations, limited mail routes and drop-off locations, lack of convenient P.O. boxes, and mail delays. Further, many Native American Reservations have difficulties traveling due to high poverty levels, lack of working vehicles, car insurance, licenses to drive off of reservations, or money for gasoline to travel to polling stations. Some Native Americans on Montana Reservations have voted through the collection and conveyance of their ballot to local election offices by community members and third parties.

Summary: The Defendants failed to provide evidence that the state of Montana has or ever had a problem with unsolicited ballot collection or ballot interference. Thus, because the Ballot Prevention Act interferes with fundamental rights it is required to meet strict scrutiny. The Ballot Interference Prevention Acts limits the number of ballots per collector to six ballots and the court determined that this did not meet a compelling state interests, lack basis, and the voter were uninformed of this limitation at the time of voting — ultimately failing a strict scrutiny test.

Conclusion: The court found in favor of the Plaintiffs stating that the Ballot Interference Prevention Action violated the right to free speech, right to vote, right to association, and right to due process.

Legal Issue(s)

Elections as a Fundamental Right
Indigenous Persons
Vote Verification and Transmission

Applicable Law(s): Ballot Inference Prevention Act

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Trial Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Sep 25, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 46.55684320353664

Longitude: -112.0529752389978

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Western Native Voice v. Stapleton.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Western Native Voice v. Stapleton

Primary Documents

Notifications