Previous 59 / 61 Next

105. Furthermore, BIPA is entirely unnecessary to prevent unsolicited ballot collection, in which voters are harassed or ballots tampered, becatse il is already prohibited under Montana law. Mont. Code Arur. $ 27 -l-1501 et seq. 106. Montana's Anti-Intimidation Statute states that "[a]n individual or organization who is attempting to exercise a legally protected right and who is injured, harassed, or aggrieved by a threat or intimidation has a civil cause of action against the person engaging in the threatening or intimidating behavior." Id. 5 27-1-|503(2). 107. Montana's Anti-Intimidation Statute provides more protection for the alleged compelling interest of the state than BIPA, because the Anti-Intimidation Statute would apply to aii acts of intimidation when collecting a ballot, whether a ballot was delivered in person or by mail. 108. There are a number of other statutes that make it illegal to engage in voter fraud, voter intimidation and ballot interference. See Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-214 (illegal influence of voters); Mont. Code fun. $ 13-35-218 (coercion or undue influence of voters); Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-235 (incorrect election procedures information); Mont. Code Ann. $ l3-27-106 (violations-penalties-false petition); Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-207 (deceptive election practices); Mont. Code Ann. $ l3-35-215 (illegal consideration from voting); Mont. Code Ann. S 13-35-201 (electors and ballots); MonI. Code Ann. $ 13-35-205 (tampering with election records and information); Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-604 (retum ofvoter registration and absentee ballot applications). 109. In addition, a voted ballot is enclosed in a secrecy envelope which is then placed in a signature envelop, which has a barcode, and when the ballot and envelopes arrive, county election offices compare and validate voters' signatures. 59

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