Democratic Party v. Jacobsen
2024 MT 66 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Montana Constitution's explicit guarantee of the right to vote (Art. II, § 13) affords greater protection than the U.S. Constitution, establishing a framework where laws that impermissibly interfere with the right to vote are subject to strict scrutiny, while those that minimally burden it are subject to an intermediate 'middle-tier' analysis balancing reasonableness and the importance of the government's interest.
Facts:
- Prior to HB 506, Montana law allowed individuals who would be 18 by election day to register and receive an absentee ballot up to 30 days before the election, though ballots were not counted until election day.
- Prior to HB 176, Montana offered election day voter registration, a practice widely used by over 70,000 Montanans since 2006; in 2014, Montana voters rejected a referendum to eliminate election day registration.
- Many organizations, including those assisting Native Americans and individuals with disabilities, utilized paid staff to collect and deliver absentee ballots for voters who faced barriers to returning them personally.
- Prior to SB 169, electors voting at the polls could present a photo ID (including a Montana student ID) or other documents like a utility bill showing their name and address.
- The Montana Legislature enacted HB 506, HB 176, HB 530, and SB 169 during the 2021 legislative session, changing these existing election practices.
- HB 506 prohibited issuing absentee ballots to voters who were not yet 18, even if they would reach 18 by election day.
- HB 176 eliminated election day registration for most voters, shifting the registration deadline to noon the day before the election.
- HB 530, § 2, required the Secretary of State to create rules banning payment for ballot collection and established a civil penalty for violations.
- SB 169 reclassified postsecondary education photo IDs, requiring voters to show additional documentation, such as a utility bill or bank statement, along with their student ID to vote at the polls.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Montana Democratic Party, et al.) challenged House Bill 506, House Bill 176, House Bill 530, § 2, and Senate Bill 169 in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court.
- The District Court consolidated the cases.
- The District Court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on HB 506 on July 27, 2022, finding it unconstitutional under strict scrutiny for interfering with the fundamental right to vote.
- The District Court denied summary judgment on the other three Bills (HB 176, HB 530, § 2, and SB 169) because issues of fact remained.
- The District Court conducted a nine-day trial on the remaining three Bills.
- On September 30, 2022, the District Court ruled that HB 176, HB 530, § 2, and SB 169 were unconstitutional, finding HB 176 unconstitutional under the right to vote and equal protection; HB 530, § 2, unconstitutional under the right to vote, equal protection, freedom of speech, due process, and as an improper delegation of legislative power; and SB 169 unconstitutional under equal protection rational basis.
- Defendant (Christi Jacobsen, Secretary of State) appealed the District Court's orders to the Montana Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the District Court err in finding § 13-2-205(2), MCA, which prohibits an absentee ballot from being issued to an elector not yet 18 but who will be by election day, unconstitutional? 2. Did the District Court err in finding § 13-2-304, MCA, which eliminates election day voter registration, unconstitutional? 3. Did the District Court err in finding HB 530, § 2, which requires administrative rules banning paid absentee ballot collection, unconstitutional? 4. Did the District Court err in finding § 13-13-114, MCA, which revises voter ID requirements for student IDs, unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Mike McGrath
No, the District Court did not err in finding HB 506, HB 176, HB 530, § 2, and SB 169 unconstitutional. The Montana Constitution provides a robust, explicit guarantee of the right to vote that offers greater protection than the implied right under the U.S. Constitution, thus rejecting the federal Anderson-Burdick test in favor of a state-constitution-driven analytical framework. This framework applies strict scrutiny when a law impermissibly interferes with the right to vote, requiring the State to show the least onerous path to a compelling interest. For laws that minimally burden the right, a middle-tier analysis applies, requiring the State to show the law is reasonable and its interest outweighs the burden. Regarding HB 506, the Court held it minimally burdens the right to vote. Under middle-tier analysis, the law is unreasonable because the distinction it creates for 17-year-olds (who will be 18 by election day) regarding absentee ballots is arbitrary and not supported by the Secretary's claims of illegal voting. Regarding HB 176, the Court held it impermissibly interferes with the right to vote. Evidence showed over 70,000 Montanans have used election day registration (EDR) since 2005, and many, especially first-time voters and Native Americans facing unique barriers, would be disenfranchised without it. The Framers of the Montana Constitution intended EDR to be available if workable. Applying strict scrutiny, the State failed to demonstrate that eliminating EDR was the least onerous path to its asserted interests of reducing administrative burdens or ensuring election integrity, as the change merely shifts, rather than reduces, administrative work and does not prevent tabulation delays. Regarding HB 530, § 2, the Court held it impermissibly interferes with the right to vote. Native Americans disproportionately rely on ballot collection due to significant geographic and systemic barriers, and the ban on paid collection substantially impacts their ability to vote. Under strict scrutiny, the State failed to show the law was narrowly tailored to its compelling interest in election integrity, as no evidence of fraud related to paid ballot collection in Montana was presented, and existing laws already criminalize nefarious activities. Regarding SB 169, the Court held it minimally burdens the right to vote. Under middle-tier analysis, the law is unreasonable. The purpose of voter ID at the polls is identity verification, not eligibility. Removing Montana student IDs as a primary form of identification does not ease administrative burdens or improve voter confidence and is an arbitrary distinction, especially when student IDs are reliable proof of identity and other primary IDs (like passports or military IDs) also do not show residency. The State's asserted interests do not outweigh the burden.
Concurring - Justice Ingrid Gustafson
Justice Gustafson concurred with the majority's conclusions but expressed a different view on HB 506. She would have applied strict scrutiny to HB 506 because precluding a predominant voting option (absentee ballot) for a subclass of voters (17-year-olds who would be 18 by election day) amounted to an impermissible interference with the right to vote, rather than a mere minimal burden. However, she agreed that since the law failed the lower middle-tier analysis, it would undoubtedly also fail strict scrutiny.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Justice Beth Baker
Justice Baker concurred with the majority's decisions on HB 176, HB 530, and SB 169, but dissented from the finding that HB 506 was unconstitutional. She argued that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to establish the facial invalidity of HB 506. In her view, HB 506 imposes an extremely minimal burden on a narrow subset of potential voters (those turning 18 within the month before an election) by removing their absentee-voting option for a single election. She found that the law served a legitimate state interest by clarifying election laws and ensuring uniformity among county election administrators, and thus, the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Justice Dirk Sandefur
Justice Sandefur concurred that HB 506 was unconstitutional, but dissented from the majority's findings on HB 176, HB 530, and SB 169. He argued that the Montana Constitution does not afford greater protection of the right to vote than the U.S. Constitution and that the majority's reliance on 'isolated statements' of individual Framers was demonstrably false. He contended that the federal Anderson-Burdick intermediate scrutiny standard should apply to non-discriminatory time, place, and manner voting regulations that do not substantially interfere with the right to vote, rather than the majority's 'amorphous ad hoc' application of a Montana-specific equal protection standard. He asserted that the majority made 'clearly erroneous findings of fact' in concluding that HB 176 and HB 530 substantially interfered with, rather than merely reasonably burdened, the right to vote, and that the Legislature has an express compelling interest under Mont. Const. Art. IV, § 3, which requires no evidentiary proof. For SB 169, he argued the elimination of student IDs as primary voter identification was reasonable, given that student IDs are not subject to the same rigorous verification standards as other primary IDs, and the purpose of ID is to prove identity, not residency.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision clarifying Montana's unique, more protective framework for voting rights challenges under its state constitution, explicitly rejecting the federal Anderson-Burdick test. It establishes a two-tiered scrutiny system: strict scrutiny for laws that 'impermissibly interfere' and middle-tier for those that 'minimally burden' the fundamental right to vote. The rulings broadly invalidate several recent legislative efforts to restrict voting access, particularly impacting young voters, Native Americans, and those relying on registration conveniences or ballot collection assistance. This precedent signifies a robust judicial role in safeguarding suffrage in Montana, likely leading to stricter review of future election laws and potentially influencing other states with strong constitutional voting rights provisions.
