Previous 45 / 61 Next

3. The right to vote "is protected in more than the initial allocation ofthe franchise, [but alsol the manner of its exercise." Big Spring v. Jore, 2005 MT 64, fl 18, 326 Mont. 256, 261, 1 09 P.3d 4. 2I 9, 222 (quolir.g Bus h v. Gore, 53 1 U.S. 98, 1 04-05 (2000)). As far back as 1895, the Montana Supreme Court held, "[s]tatutes tending to limit a citizen in the exercise of the right to vote should be liberally construed in his favor." Stackpole v. Hallahan (1895), 16 Mont.40, 85, 40 P. 80. 5. In Montana, it is the "general rule" that strict scrutiny applies in voting rights Johns on v. Kill ingsworth (1995), 27 1 6. Mont. 1, 4, 894 P.2d 272, cases. 27 4. Voting rights cases involving "general" govemance issues are properly evaluated under a strict scrutiny standard. Id. a119. 7. "ln interpreting the Montana Constitution, this Court has repeatedly refused to 'march lock-step' with the United States Supreme Court, even where the state constitutional provision at issue is nearly identical to its federal counterpart." State v. Guillaume, 1999 8. MT 29,n16,293 Mont. 224,975P.2d312. The State agrees that the Montana Supreme Court has "not specifically applied the federal balancing test;' Driscoll v. Stapleton, Cause No. DA20-0295, State's Appeal Br. at 10. 9. The U.S. Supreme Court decided I nderson in 1983 and Burdick in 1992. Since then, every voting rights case decided by the Montana Supreme Court under our own Constitution has reaffirmed the general rule that strict scrutiny applies in voting rights cases. Killingsworth, 271 Mont. 1; Finke v. State ex rel. McGrath, 2003 MT 48, 314 Mont. 314, 65 P.3d576. 45

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