60. But given the risk of perjury for incorrect identification of "family members," it is important for individuals to know whether a ballot has been collected from a "family member" or an "acquaintance" under BIPA. 61. The way BIPA is written now, voters cannot do that. This vagueness has deterred ballot collection activities. 62. BIPA is also unconstitutionally vague as applied to Plaintiffs. "A statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to [an individua! if: (1) it fails to provide'actual notice' to the [individual], or (2) it fails to provide 'minimal guidelines' to law enforcement regarding the defendant's conduct." State v. Hamilton, 2018 MT 253, fl 20, 393 Mont. 102,428 P.3d 849 (citations omitted). 63. A statute fails to provide "minimal guidelines" when it fails "to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." /d. 64. As discussed above, the definitions ofexemptions are insufficient to give notice ofwhat is prohibited. 65. Plaintiffs cannot determine for sure whether someone is an "acquaintance" or "family member" under the statute, and that is fatal. 66. BIPA is also ripe for arbitrary enforcement, for several reasons. 67. First, Defendants' interpretation of the statute arbitrarily distinguishes between the conveyance ofballots in person and via mail. 68. The stated purpose ofthe statute was to prevent unsolicited ballot collection. 69. But Defendants Stapleton and Mangan have interpreted the statute to apply only to the conveyance ofballots in person and not conveyance ofballots through the mail. 54