16. Under
this "more flexible" standard, the rigorousness of a court's "inquiry into the
propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged
regulation burdens" the plaintifPs constitutional rights.
17. When
Id
the right to vote is "subjected to severe restrictions, the regulation must be
nanowly drawn to advance
a state interest
of compelling importance." 1d (citation and
intemal quotation marks omitted).
18.
However, "when
a
state election law provision imposes only
nondiscriminatory restrictions upon" voters' constitutional rights,
important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to
reasonable,
"the
State's
justi$ the restrictions."
1d.
(citation and intemal quotation marks omitted).
19. Even
if the Court were to apply the balancing test as argued by the State, the facts
presented at trial clearly demonstrate that the limitations, burdens and voter costs
imposed by BIPA on Native American and rural voters in Montana are not reasonable,
are discriminatory and are notjustified by any documented regulatory interests.
B. BIPA infringes
on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote.
i4. BIPA infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote.
See
llillems
v.
State,2ll4MT
82,n32,374 Mont. 3$,n32,325 P.3d 1204,n32 (the right to vote is a tundamental
right).
15. The
right to vote is protected by Article II, Section 13 of the Montana Constitution.
Mont. Const. art. II, $ 13 ("All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or
military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of
suffrage.").
47