Previous 41 / 61 Next

D. Voting on Indian Reservations after BIPA. 30. BIPA impacts all Montana voters and ballot collectors, but Native Americans are disproportionately affected by BIPA. 09/09l20Tial Tr. (McCool) at 315:5-13, 319:10- 320:16; 09108/20 Trial Tr. (Street) at 201:5-21, 205:7-207:4,210:8-212:13,213:6226:25, 227:8-249:1, 249:7-250:9,255:5-257:3, 258:1-24; 09109/20 Trial Tr. (Street) at270:10-272:3,278:4-280:1,283:23-284:18; see also Beall Dep. Tr. 144:11-145:3; Mangan Dep. Tr. 168:3-12, 168:18-22, 169:4-10; Pl. Ex.'s 23lStip. Ex. 4; 24lStip. Ex. 6; 26lStip. Ex. 8; 113/Stip. Ex. 2. 3l . Some Native Americans living on reservations rely on ballot collection and conveyance in order to participate in Montana's elections. 09109120 Trial Tr. (McCool) a|339:17 24. 32. BIPA has effectively ended the practice of ballot collection and conveyance and burdened Native American's, living on reservations, right to (Mcl-ean) at 45:5-17;' 09108120 Trial vote. Tr. (Perez) at 79:6-12; 09/08120 Trial Tr. 09/09120 Trial Tr. (McCool) at339:17-24,381:8-23; 09/09120 Trial Tr. (Street) at 278:16-280:1. 33. BIPA has disproportionately affected tumout of Native American voters on Montana's reservations and has the potential to continue to negatively affect voter tumout in the same demographic. 09109/20Ttial Tr. (McCool) at 315:5- 13, 319:10-320:16; 09108/20 Trial Tr. (Street) at 201:5-21,205:7-207:4,210:8-212:13,213:6-226:25,227:8-249:1. 249:7-250:9, 255:5-257:3, 258:l-24; 09109120 Trial Tr. (Street) at 270:10-272:3, 278:4-280:1,283:23-284:18; Pl. Ex.'s 24lStip. Ex. 8,26lStip. Ex. 8. 34. Given the confusion and potential range of penalties associated with BIPA, BIPA will have a chilling effect on the Organizational Plaintiffs ability to provide the vital service 4t

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