51. That definition is not sufficiently detailed to allow a person to know exactly when someone moves from the category of generally prohibited individual to a permitted "acquaintance." See supra Section C.30.f. 52. The word does not solve the problem ofhow long must someone know the voter before they can collect their ballot. Further, it is not clear whether this includes a person they may "know of' such as by reputation, or whether it only includes someone the voter has met personally. 53. BIPA also exempts from its prohibition the collection of ballots by a "family member." Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-703(2). 54. But the statutory definition of "family member" is also unconstitutionally vague. 55. BIPA defines "family member" as "an individual who is related to the voter by blood, maniage, adoption, or legal guardianship." /d $ l3-35-702(1). 56. The testimony ofthe election administuators is that some voters read BIPA not to apply to them at all when they tum in the ballots of spouses. 57. BIPA's definition of "family member" does not correlate with family relationships in Indian country. See supra Section C.30.g. 58. During the hearing to place BIPA on the ballot, the bill's sponsor stated that people should use their "good judgment" when confronted with the ways definition was unclear as applied to in which the Indian country. 59. "Good judgment" is not a legal standard appropriate to be applied to a fundamental right. 53