Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Montana LR-129
Flag of Montana.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Elections and campaigns
Status
Approveda 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

Approved Yes

301,172 62.81%
No 178,324 37.19%
Results are officially certified.
Source

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 VoteDefendant(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:

(a) an election official;
(b) a United States postal service worker or other individual specifically authorized by law to transmit United States mail;
(c) a caregiver;
(d) a family member;
(e) a household member; or
(f) an acquaintance.

(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.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 37, and the FRE is -50. The word count for the ballot title is 66, and the estimated reading time is 17 seconds.

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

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

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Montana ballot measures
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

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.svg

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


Election Policy Logo.png
Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot
  • Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) Approveda - 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.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

  • Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) Approveda - 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.
  • North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) Approveda - 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.

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) Defeatedd - 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.


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

See also: Legislatively-referred state statutes in Montana

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 vote

March 30, 2017[27]

Montana SB 352 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 30 61.22%
No1938.78%
Partisan breakdown of Senate votes
Party Affiliation Yes No Excused Total
Democrat 0 17 1 18
Republican 30 2 0 32
Total 30 19 1 50

House vote

April 13, 2017[27]

Montana SB 352 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 51 51.00%
No4949.00%
Partisan breakdown of House votes
Party Affiliation Yes No Excused Total
Democrat 1 40 0 41
Republican 50 9 0 59
Total 51 49 0 100

Political context

See also: Party control of Montana state government

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

USA Montana location map.svg
Demographic data for Montana
 MontanaU.S.
Total population:1,032,073316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):145,5463,531,905
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

Related measures

Elections and campaigns measures on the ballot in 2018
StateMeasures
South CarolinaSouth Carolina Amendment 1: Appointed Superintendent of Education Amendment Defeatedd
North DakotaNorth Dakota Measure 1: Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative Approveda
South DakotaSouth Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative Approveda/Overturnedot
South DakotaSouth Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Defeatedd
MissouriMissouri Amendment 1: Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Approveda
ArizonaArizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure Approveda
MaineMaine Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Referendum Approveda

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.

Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) - Google News

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 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.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ Montana Public Radio, "Bill Asks Voters To Limit Who Can Deliver Ballots," April 10, 2017
  4. ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Bill would limit who can drop off ballots for people," January 24, 2017
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Montana Legislature, "Senate Bill 352," accessed March 30, 2017
  6. ↑ ACLU of Montana, "Western Native Voice v. Stapleton," accessed July 9, 2020
  7. ↑ ACLU of Montana, "Preliminary Injunction Ruling," accessed July 9, 2020
  8. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Montana Legislature, "Senate State Administration Committee -- March 30, 2017," accessed March 30, 2017
  10. ↑ Our Revolution, "Ballot initiative endorsements," accessed September 22, 2018
  11. ↑ Great Falls Tribune, "Legislature passes more than a dozen bills," April 13, 2017
  12. ↑ Montana Campaign Electronic Reporting System, "2018 Ballot Issue Committee Search," accessed June 26, 2018
  13. ↑ Arizona Legislature, "House Bill 2023," accessed April 12, 2017
  14. ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Gov. Doug Ducey signs bill banning ballot collection," March 10, 2016
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 United States District Court of Arizona, "Complaint," April 15, 2016
  16. ↑ United States District Court of Arizona, "Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene," May 2, 2016
  17. ↑ United States District Court of Arizona, "Motion to Intervene by Arizona Republican Party," May 9, 2016
  18. ↑ United States District Court of Arizona, "State Defendants' Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction," July 19, 2016
  19. ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Judge rejects hold on Arizona 'ballot harvesting' law," September 23, 2016
  20. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal and for Expedited Appeal," October 4, 2016
  21. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "En Banc Opinion and Order Granting Injunction Pending Appeal," November 4, 2016
  22. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Order Granting Stay of Ninth Circuit's Injunction," November 5, 2016
  23. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Order Rescheduling Oral Argument to June 2017," December 13, 2016
  24. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Order Rescheduling Oral Argument to December 2017," May 25, 2017
  25. ↑ Phoenix New Times, "Judge Rules Against Democrats In Election Lawsuit; Upholding Ban On Ballot Collection," May 10, 2018
  26. ↑ Washington Babylon, ""Ballot Harvesting": Something Is Rotten in California, and Heading Your Way Soon," accessed June 26, 2018
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Montana Legislature, "SB 352 Overview," accessed March 30, 2017
  28. ↑ Montana Code Annotated, "5-4-301," accessed February 22, 2017
  29. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
v • e
2018 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington
Non I&R States
Political topics
 • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎
Other
Flag of Montana
v • e
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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Montana_LR-129,_Ballot_Collection_Measure_(2018)&oldid=8091207"