Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9[2]
- Early voting: Oct. 9 - Nov. 5
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6
- Online registration: No
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
- Poll times: Polling places open between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. and close at 8:00 p.m.
Montana LR-129 | |
---|---|
Election date November 6, 2018 | |
Topic Elections and campaigns | |
Status Approved | |
Type State statute | Origin State legislature |
Montana LR-129, the Ballot Collection Measure, was on the ballot in Montana as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported this measure to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. |
A "no" vote opposed this measure to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. |
Election results
Montana LR-129 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
301,172 | 62.81% | |||
No | 178,324 | 37.19% |
Overview
Measure design
Individuals who engage in ballot collection obtain voters’ mail-in, absentee, or early ballots and deliver them to election officials and/or polling places to be counted.[3] Some opponents of the practice refer to ballot collection as ballot harvesting.[4]
LR-129 was designed to prohibit a person, with exceptions for certain individuals, from knowingly collecting another person's election ballot. Individuals exempted from the ban include: (a) election officials; (b) postal service workers or others authorized to transmit mail; (c) caregivers; (d) family members; (e) household members; and (f) individuals known by the voter.[5]
Besides election officials and postal service workers, individuals exempted from the ban can not collect more than six ballots and need to provide the following information: (a) the individual's name; (b) the voter's name; and (c) the individual's relationship to the voter.[5]
Violating the measure is punishable by a fine of $500 for each ballot collected. The measure was designed to become effective on the day it was approved by voters on November 6, 2018.[5]
How did this measure get on the ballot?
Sen. Albert Olszewski (R-6) introduced the measure into the legislature as Senate Bill 352 (SB 352) on March 16, 2017. The Senate passed the measure, 30 to 19 with one senator excused, on March 30, 2017. The House of Representatives approved the measure, 51 to 49, on April 13, 2017.
Aftermath
Lawsuit overview | |
Issue: Whether the Ballot Interference Prevention Act is constitutional | |
Court: Montana 13th Judicial District Court | |
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, blocking the state from enforcing the law | |
Plaintiff(s): Western Native Voice and Montana Native Vote | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R), Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R), Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan |
Plaintiff argument: The Ballot Interference Prevention Act infringes on the rights of individuals who live in rural communities that have used ballot collectors to return their ballots | Defendant argument: The intent of the Ballot Interference Prevention Act was to have legal backing to call law enforcement if individuals feel that they are being pressured to give collectors their ballots |
Source: AP News
On March 12, 2020, the ACLU of Montana filed a lawsuit on behalf of Western Native Voice and Montana Native Vote against Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R), Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R), and Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan regarding the enforcement of the Ballot Interference Prevention Act (BIPA). The plaintiffs argue that the act disproportionally affects rural communities, especially Native Americans, who utilize ballot collectors to return their ballots. ACLU of Montana said, "These ballot collection efforts are often the only way many Indigenous people can access the vote. Ballot Interference Prevention Act effectively ends this practice, disenfranchising Indigenous voters en masse."[6]
On July 7, 2020, District Judge Jessica Fehr ruled that the law was unconstitutional. In her ruling, she said, "The State has failed to demonstrate through any evidence the existence of any compelling state interest that would warrant the interference of the right to vote created by BIPA. If a preliminary injunction were not granted, BIPA would cause irreparable harm to Montana voters by preventing absentee ballot voters from voting with the assistance of ballot collection organizations."[7]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[5]
“ | An act establishing the Montana Ballot Interference Prevention Act; prohibiting the collection of another individual's ballot; providing exceptions; requiring certain individuals who are authorized to collect ballots to provide certain information when delivering the ballot to a polling place or election administrator's office; providing penalties and definitions; providing that the proposed act be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana; and providing an immediate effective date.
[] YES on Legislative Referendum [_____]. [] NO on Legislative Referendum [_____].[8] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure is below:[5]
Section 1. Short title. Sections 1 through 5 may be cited as the "Montana Ballot Interference Prevention Act". Section 2. Definitions. As used in sections 1 through 5, the following definitions apply: (1) "Acquaintance" means an individual known by the voter. (2) "Caregiver" means an individual who provides medical or health care assistance to the voter in a residence, nursing care institution, hospice facility, assisted living center, assisted living home, residential care institution, adult day health care facility, or adult foster care home. (3) "Collect" means to gain possession or control of a ballot. (4) "Family member" means an individual who is related to the voter by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship. (5) "Household member" means an individual who resides at the same residence as the voter. Section 3. Ballot collection prohibited -- exceptions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person may not knowingly collect a voter's voted or unvoted ballot. (2) This section does not apply to:
(3) An individual authorized to collect a voter's ballot pursuant to subsection (2)(c) through (2)(f) may not collect and convey more than six ballots. Section 4. Record of delivery. An individual permitted to collect and convey a ballot under section 3(2)(c) through (2)(f) shall sign a registry when delivering the ballot to the polling place or the election administrator's office. In addition to the signature requirement, the individual collecting and conveying the ballot must provide the following information: (1) the individual's name, address, and phone number; (2) the voter's name and address; and (3) the individual's relationship to the voter required to collect and convey a ballot pursuant to section 3(2)(c) through (2)(f). Section 5. Penalty. A violation of a provision of sections 1 through 5 is punishable by a fine of $500 for each ballot unlawfully collected. Section 6. Codification instruction. Sections 1 through 5 are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 13, chapter 35, and the provisions of Title 13, chapter 35, apply to sections 1 through 5. Section 7. Effective date. This act is effective upon approval by the electorate. Section 8. Submission to electorate. This act shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at the general election to be held in November 2018 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the following: [] YES on Legislative Referendum _____. [] NO on Legislative Referendum _____. |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support
Sen. Albert Olszewski (R-6), the measure's legislative sponsor, said the goal of the measure is to "make unsolicited ballot collection illegal."[9]
Opposition
Opponents
Organizations
- Our Revolution[10]
Individuals
- The following individuals testified against the measure during a hearing before the Senate State Administration Committee:[9]
- S.K. Rossi, director of Advocacy and Public Policy, ACLU of Montana
- Jordan Thompson, attorney, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
- Jules Shindel, organizing director, Montana Women Vote & Montana Human Rights Network
- Andy Bixler, lobbyist, Montana Associated Students
Arguments
- Rep. Bryce Bennett (D-91), who voted against the measure in the state House, said, "This bill is about creating barriers where none are needed, or none need to exist, because our system works as it is. This bill hurts voters."[11]
Campaign finance
Total campaign contributions: | |
Support: | $0.00 |
Opposition: | $0.00 |
Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered in support of or in opposition to the measure.[12]
Background
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ballot collection in Arizona
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over nine western states, including Montana. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of banning ballot collection in June 2017. The case originated in Arizona, where the state government approved a bill to ban an individual from knowingly collecting another individual's early election ballot. The bill, titled House Bill 2023 (HB 2023), was also designed to make ballot collection a class 6 felony. Individuals exempted from the Arizona ban included election officials, postal service workers, caregivers, family members, and household members.[13] Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) said the bill would ensure "a secure chain of custody between the voter and the ballot box."[14]
In April 2016, Lisa Feldman and other individuals, the DNC, DSCC, Arizona Democratic Party, Kirkpatrick for U.S. Senate, Hillary for America, and Bernie 2016, Inc. filed a complaint against Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) over HB 2023 and other elections-related issues in the U.S. District Court for Arizona.[15][16] The Arizona Republican Party also intervened as a defendant.[17] Plaintiffs brought the complaint forward on a number of counts, including the following specific to HB 2023:[15]
- (1) HB 2023 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because the bill "will have an adverse and disparate impact on Hispanic, African-American, and/or Native-American citizens of Arizona."
- (2) HB 2023 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because "the right to vote of thousands of Arizona citizens is severely and unjustifiably burdened by the criminalization of the collection of absentee ballots," and the "state has no interest of sufficient importance that outweighs any of these burdens on otherwise eligible members of Arizona’s electorate."
- (3) HB 2023 violates the First Amendment because the bill "imposes real and substantial burdens on political organizations and their members to engage in lawful efforts to assist voters in casting their ballots."
Defendants responded to the plaintiffs, stating:[18]
- (1) HB 2023 does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs have not shown that "HB2023 will have a discriminatory impact" nor "how a reduction in the availability of ballot collection will leave minority voters with less opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice."
- (2) HB 2023 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state has a "rational basis for HB2023," as "eliminating even the perception of fraud is a legitimate state interest."
- (3) HB 2023 does not violate the First Amendment. HB 2023 does not prevent plaintiffs from "engaging with voters to discuss candidates and issues, to inform them about the process of voting, or to encourage them to vote."
Plaintiffs in the case asked the court to stop the state government from enforcing HB 2023.[15] On September 23, 2016, Judge Douglas Rayes rejected plaintiffs' request for an injunction on HB 2023, allowing the bill to remain in effect for the election on November 8, 2016.[19]
On October 4, 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals received a motion from the plaintiffs asking for an injunction on HB 2023, noting that the state was set to mail early ballots to voters in eight days.[20] On November 4, 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to issue an injunction on HB 2023, thus allowing for ballot collection during the remaining four days before the election.[21] Defendants asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the injunction on HB 2023. On November 5, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to stop the injunction, meaning HB 2023 remained in effect.[22]
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments in the case for the week of December 11, 2017.[23][24]
Ruling
In May 2018, the U.S. District Judge Douglas L. Rayes ruled that the ban on ballot collection for others was not unconstitutional. Rayes stated that there was not enough evidence showing that the law affected minorities more than any other Arizona residents.[25]
Ballot collection bans in the United States
As of December 28, 2017, 19 states had outlawed the practice of ballot collection or ballot harvesting.[26]
Election policy on the ballot in 2018
Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.
Redistricting:
- See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot
- Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018) - The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.
- Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.
- Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.
- Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.
- Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.
- Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.
Voting requirements and ballot access:
- Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.
- Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.
- Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.
- Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.
- Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.
- Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.
- Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.
- North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.
- North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.
Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.
Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:
- Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.
- Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.
- Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.
- North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.
- South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.
- South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.
Referred statutes on the ballot
From 1996 through 2016, the state legislature referred eight state statutes to the ballot. Voters approved seven and rejected one of the referred statutes. The rejected measure would have shortened the deadline for late voter registration. The average number of referred statutes appearing on the ballot during an even-numbered election year was between zero and one. No referred statutes appeared on the ballot in 2016. However, one appeared on the ballot in 2014. The approval rate for referred statutes at the ballot box was 87.50 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 12.50 percent.
Legislatively-referred state statutes on even-year ballots from 1996-2016 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total number | Approved | Percent approved | Defeated | Percent defeated | Annual average | Annual median | Annual minimum | Annual maximum | |
8 | 7 | 87.50% | 1 | 12.50% | 0.73 | 0.00 | 0 | 3 |
Path to the ballot
In Montana, a simple majority is required in both chambers of the state legislature to place a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot.
Sen. Albert Olszewski (R-6) introduced the measure into the legislature as Senate Bill 352 (SB 352) on March 16, 2017. The Senate State Administration Committee approved the measure, 5 to 3, on March 27, 2017. The Senate passed the measure, 30 to 19 with one senator excused, on March 30, 2017. The House of Representatives approved the measure, 51 to 49, on April 13, 2017.[27] Rep. Sharon Stewart-Peregoy (D-42) was the only Democratic legislator to vote for SB 352.
Section 5 of Article III of the Montana Constitution, along with Montana Code 5-4-301, provides that the governor cannot veto legislatively referred state statutes or stop them from appearing on the ballot.[28] In 2017, the governor of Montana was Steve Bullock (D).
Senate voteMarch 30, 2017[27]
|
House voteApril 13, 2017[27]
|
Political context
During the 2017 legislative session, Montana was a divided government. Republicans controlled both the state House of Representatives and state Senate. The governor was Democrat Steve Bullock. As this ballot measure is a referred statute, the governor could not veto or stop the measure from appearing on the ballot. In the state Senate, Republicans held 32 seats in the 50-seat chamber. All Democrats and two Republicans voted against referring this measure, allowing it to pass 30 to 20 in the Senate. In the state House, Republicans held 59 seats in the 100-seat chamber. Nine House Republicans voted against this measure, meaning it would have been unable to get a simple majority to make the ballot if all Democrats voted against it. However, one Democrat, Rep. Sharon Stewart-Peregoy (D-42), voted 'yes,' allowing the measure to make the ballot with 51 of 100 votes.
Montana Party Control: 1992-2017
Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
Senate | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
House | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
State profile
Demographic data for Montana | ||
---|---|---|
Montana | U.S. | |
Total population: | 1,032,073 | 316,515,021 |
Land area (sq mi): | 145,546 | 3,531,905 |
Race and ethnicity** | ||
White: | 89.2% | 73.6% |
Black/African American: | 0.5% | 12.6% |
Asian: | 0.7% | 5.1% |
Native American: | 6.5% | 0.8% |
Pacific Islander: | 0.1% | 0.2% |
Two or more: | 2.5% | 3% |
Hispanic/Latino: | 3.3% | 17.1% |
Education | ||
High school graduation rate: | 92.8% | 86.7% |
College graduation rate: | 29.5% | 29.8% |
Income | ||
Median household income: | $47,169 | $53,889 |
Persons below poverty level: | 17% | 11.3% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Montana. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. |
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Montana
Montana voted Republican in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, three are located in Montana, accounting for 1.46 percent of the total pivot counties.[29]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Montana had two Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 1.10 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.
More Montana coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Montana
- United States congressional delegations from Montana
- Public policy in Montana
- Influencers in Montana
- Montana fact checks
- More...
Related measures
See also
External links
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Montana 2018 Ballot Collection Measure. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Footnotes
- ↑ If one missed the Oct. 9 deadline, he or she could have still voted in the election by registering in person at the county election office. Late registration was available until the close of polls on Election Day.
- ↑ If one missed the Oct. 9 deadline, he or she could have still voted in the election by registering in person at the county election office. Late registration was available until the close of polls on Election Day.
- ↑ Montana Public Radio, "Bill Asks Voters To Limit Who Can Deliver Ballots," April 10, 2017
- ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Bill would limit who can drop off ballots for people," January 24, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Montana Legislature, "Senate Bill 352," accessed March 30, 2017
- ↑ ACLU of Montana, "Western Native Voice v. Stapleton," accessed July 9, 2020
- ↑ ACLU of Montana, "Preliminary Injunction Ruling," accessed July 9, 2020
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Montana Legislature, "Senate State Administration Committee -- March 30, 2017," accessed March 30, 2017
- ↑ Our Revolution, "Ballot initiative endorsements," accessed September 22, 2018
- ↑ Great Falls Tribune, "Legislature passes more than a dozen bills," April 13, 2017
- ↑ Montana Campaign Electronic Reporting System, "2018 Ballot Issue Committee Search," accessed June 26, 2018
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "House Bill 2023," accessed April 12, 2017
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Gov. Doug Ducey signs bill banning ballot collection," March 10, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 United States District Court of Arizona, "Complaint," April 15, 2016
- ↑ United States District Court of Arizona, "Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene," May 2, 2016
- ↑ United States District Court of Arizona, "Motion to Intervene by Arizona Republican Party," May 9, 2016
- ↑ United States District Court of Arizona, "State Defendants' Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction," July 19, 2016
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Judge rejects hold on Arizona 'ballot harvesting' law," September 23, 2016
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal and for Expedited Appeal," October 4, 2016
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "En Banc Opinion and Order Granting Injunction Pending Appeal," November 4, 2016
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Order Granting Stay of Ninth Circuit's Injunction," November 5, 2016
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Order Rescheduling Oral Argument to June 2017," December 13, 2016
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Order Rescheduling Oral Argument to December 2017," May 25, 2017
- ↑ Phoenix New Times, "Judge Rules Against Democrats In Election Lawsuit; Upholding Ban On Ballot Collection," May 10, 2018
- ↑ Washington Babylon, ""Ballot Harvesting": Something Is Rotten in California, and Heading Your Way Soon," accessed June 26, 2018
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Montana Legislature, "SB 352 Overview," accessed March 30, 2017
- ↑ Montana Code Annotated, "5-4-301," accessed February 22, 2017
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
State of Montana Helena (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |