Previous 25 / 61 Next

C. The Ballot Interference Prevention Act ("BIPA"). 25. BIPA prohibits the knowing collection of a ballot, unless the collector is the voter's acquaintance, family member, caregiver, household member, postal service worker, or an election official. Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-35-703. 26. Unless they are a postal service worker or election official, a ballot collector may collect no more than six ballots in any instance and must sign a registry form. /d. $ $ 13- 35-703; 13-35-704. 27. Failure to follow BIPA subjects one to a fine of$500 per ballot collected and potential imprisonment for false stalements made on the registry form Id. $$ 13-35-705;45-7- 201; see also 09/08120 Trial Tr. (Mclean) at 50:3-24. 28. Relevant Legislative History. a. Montana State Senator Albert Olszewski introduced BIPA as Senate Bill 352 on March 16, 2017 , as a legislative act subject to referendum. b. On March 22,2017, the Senate Committee on State Administration conducted a hearing to consider the bill. Stip. Ex. 9. c. On March 30 ,2017 , SB-352 passed the Senate and was transmitted to the House. d. On April 6,2017, the House Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing to consider the bill. Stip. Ex. 11. e. TheSecretaryofState'soflicewasnotaskeditspositiononBIPA.09/10/20Trial Tr. (Corson) at 469:12-14. f. Senator Olszewski repeated twice that the purpose of the of Montana to determine whether unsolicited Stip. Ex.'s. 9 at 3, 1 I at2; absentee ballot collection see a/so Stip. Ex. 9 at 39. 25 bill was to ask the people is legal.

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