Previous 44 / 61 Next

4l . If Westem Native Voice was not able to perform this function, the burden of transporting those voters to the polls or to the post office would fall to the Tribes. Fort Peck Tribes, for example, currently do not have the capacity to cover all voting tribal members' transportation needs during election season and on Election Ex. 1 14, I11; see also 09108120 Day. Pl. Trial Tr. (Perez) at 70:22-72:20;74:11-75:2. 42. CSKT does not have the capacity to provide rides to the polls or post office for every voting member of the tribe. 09/08120 Trial Tr. (Fyari) at97:l-4. 43. Fort Belknap has a limited transportation system that travels just one route from Hays to Fort Belknap Agency. 9 18/20 Trial Tr. (Cuts the Rope) at 163 :l 44. As a result, many Native American voters 6-1 64:1. will be disenfranchised. Pl. Ex.'s 24lStip. Ex. 6,26lStip. Ex. 8, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. BIPA is subject I . 2. to strict scrutiny. This Court has already held in this matter that BIPA is subject to strict scrutiny. Montana's fundamental rights - those that are either found in the Declaration of Rights or rights "without which other constitutionally guaranteed rights would have little meaning" - are evaluated on a strict scrutiny standard. Butle Community Union v. Lewis (1986),219 Mont. 426,430,712P.2d 1309, 1311; Snetsinger v. Mont. Univ. Sys.,2004 MT 390, J1 17,325 Mont. 148, 104 P.3d 445;see also,Obergv. Billings (1983), 207 Mont. 27'1, 674 P.2d 494 ("Examples of fundamental rights include privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to vote and right to interstate travel. "). 44

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