Court Opinion

ID: 9955137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:09:58.766881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.952313
License: Public Domain

03/27/2024

                                SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE1
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 22-0667

2024 MT 66, DA 22-0667: MONTANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and MITCH BOHN,
WESTERN NATIVE VOICE, MONTANA NATIVE VOTE, BLACKFEET
NATION, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES, FORT
BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY, and NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE,
MONTANA YOUTH ACTION, FORWARD MONTANA FOUNDATION, and
MONTANA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v.
CHRISTI JACOBSEN, in her official capacity as Montana Secretary of State,
Defendant and Appellant.

The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that four laws passed by the 2021 Legislature
violate the fundamental right to vote provided to all citizens by the Montana Constitution.

The Opinion affirms rulings made by a district court judge in Billings in September 2022
following a nine-day trial where numerous witnesses and election experts provided
testimony.

HB 506 precludes a 17-year-old elector, who would be 18 by election day, from receiving
and voting an absentee ballot. Current law allows new voters to register to vote if they will
be 18 on election day, but under HB 506, these voters are not allowed to vote by mail.

The Court’s Opinion held the law imposes an unreasonable burden on those electors’
fundamental right to vote and is therefore unconstitutional and may not be enforced.

House Bill 176 eliminated same day voter registration and closes registration at 12:00 p.m.
the day prior to an election.

The District Court had found that same day registration has been “wildly popular” since it
was adopted in 2005 and retained by Montana voters in a statewide election in 2014. The
Court noted that over 70,000 people have registered to vote on election day, and that the
evidence presented at trial clearly demonstrated that the practice is not difficult for election
officials to administer.

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court ruling that HB 176 interferes with
fundamental voting rights and is therefore unenforceable.

HB 530 requires the Secretary of State to adopt administrative rules to preclude the paid
collection and submission of absentee ballots by other individuals or groups. The District

1
 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the
Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent.
Court determined that ballot collection practices are commonly used in remote areas,
including Indian reservations, where because of long distances it is a hardship to get to
polling places, or even receive mail service. Additionally, some groups provide similar
assistance to individuals with disabilities so they are able to vote.

The Supreme Court clarified that it will continue to be illegal to pay ballot collectors by
the number of ballots collected. However, paying employees for duties that include general
ballot collection will be allowed. Broadly excluding assistance to disadvantaged voters by
collection and submission of previously voted, sealed ballots interferes with those voters’
fundamental voting rights and is therefore unconstitutional.

Finally, Senate Bill 169 prevents the use of student ID cards as acceptable forms of
identification for in-person voting.

The District Court noted substantial evidence at trial demonstrated that excluding student
ID cards, while at the same time allowing other forms of identification, does not prevent
voter fraud. The purpose of requiring identification to vote is to ensure that the person
actually voting is the same person that is registered, and thus properly qualified to vote.
To register to vote, more rigorous identification is required.

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court and ruled that excluding the use of student
identification cards to vote imposes an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and is
therefore unconstitutional.

Four members of the Court signed the majority ruling that all four laws are
unconstitutional. One justice agreed with the majority that SB 169, HB 176, and HB 550
were unconstitutional but dissented on HB 506. Two justices dissented on three issues but
agreed that HB 506 was unconstitutional.

The dissents asserted in part that the Constitution also provides that the Legislature has the
authority to regulate and safeguard elections, and that the laws as passed were a proper
exercise of legislative authority.

                                              2