70. This is arbitrary, as the legislative record lacks any rationale to explain why the two forms ofdelivery should be treated differently. 71. It is also irrational as there is no reason why an individual intent on committing voter fraud could not collect ballots and drop them offat a mailbox, thus circumventing the state purpose of the Act. 72. Second, Defendants have also created the risk ofan inconsistent enforcement scheme. 73. The Attomey General acknowledges the risks of inconsistent enforcement but has not issued any guidelines or directives for enforcement of BIPA. 74. While Defendants Stapleton and Mangan have adopted this interpretation of BIPA, their interpretation is not binding on county attomeys, who are also able to bring prosecutions under BIPA. 75. There is nothing in the record to show that ballots retumed by mail are any less susceptible to fraud. 76. Their interpretation could also be changed by future administrations. 77.There has been no coordinated enforcement policy between Defendant Mangan and county attomeys, and Defendant Mangan testified that he never spoke to local officials about the one investigation that involved BIPA. 78. Defendant Mangan also did not involve county attomeys in the informal referrals that he received from election administrators of BIPA violations, which he decided to resolve by sending voters letters and not seeking to enforce monetary penalties. 79. Because enforcement may occur both at the state level through Defendant Mangan's office and at the local county attomey level, see Mont. Code An". $$ 13-37 -124; 13- 37-125,BIPA invites differences with how each could interpret the same activity. 55