State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Montana

Montana to vote on Supreme Court justice elections

· ·

by Elderidge Nichols

On April 18, 2011, the Montana state legislature passed SB 268 which calls for a referendum vote to determine the future of elections for the Montana Supreme Court.  On June 5, 2012, on the 2012 Primary Election Ballot, voters in Montana will determine whether Montana will begin to elect Supreme Court justices by districts.

Although the Montana state senate passed SB 268 the Attorney General’s office and Secretary of State are statutorily obligated to approve of the language of the Statement of Purpose designed to explain the purpose of the referendum.  Andrew Huff, Assistant Attorney General of the state of Montana, passed along a copy of the accepted language. The Statement of Purpose reads:

The Montana Supreme Court is composed of seven justices, one of whom is Chief Justice. Under current law, the justices are elected statewide and each Montanan votes for all seven positions. LR-119 would change existing law so that each justice is elected from one of seven districts of approximately equal population, with the Chief Justice then chosen from the seven by majority vote of the justices. Only Montanans living in each district would vote for their district’s justice. Justices must reside in their district when initially elected. [Read more…] about Montana to vote on Supreme Court justice elections

Montana Supreme Court leading the charge against Citizens United

· ·

by Patrick Genova

Last month the Supreme Court issued a stay on Montana’s Supreme Court decision upholding corporate spending limits in state elections. It seems that the Court may be ready to reexamine Citizens United. What they’ll find is what many states have been saying all along: Citizens United is out of sync with the values of many states.

Montana was the first of many states to express disdain for unlimited corporate funding. Early last week 55 towns in Vermont passed resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment that would limit the rights of corporations. The Alabama legislature has also been seeking to stop PAC-to-PAC fund transfers that mask donors. Even some members of the Court seem eager to reexamine the effects of Citizens United. In response to the Montana decision, Justice Ginsburg referred to Justice Kennedy’s language in Citizens United decision saying, “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’” Meanwhile some panelists at the Federal Election Commission’s hearing last week urged the FEC not to wait for the Supreme Court to reverse Citizens United and to take regulatory action into their own hands. [Read more…] about Montana Supreme Court leading the charge against Citizens United

Montana rebels against Citizens United

· ·

Patrick Genova

in-depth article

It may be surprising that the biggest blow to corporations in 2011 didn’t come from Wall Street protestors. Late last month Montana’s Supreme Court took a swing at corporate spending in elections holding, in spite of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, that a 100-year-old law banning corporate spending was valid. In doing so, the court held that the lower court’s reading of Citizens United was erroneous. The Court in Citizens United said, “Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction ‘furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.’”

So what exactly should be considered a “compelling interest” for bans on political spending? The Supreme Court of Montana answers bluntly that they have met the standard of review set out in Citizens United. In assessing Chief Justice McGrath explains Montana’s long standing fight against corporate spending. [Read more…] about Montana rebels against Citizens United

Montana Eyes Voting By Mail

· ·

Montanans are currently embroiled in a debate over whether to transition to a vote-by-mail system, a move that could make Montana the third state, after Oregon and Washington (which has a “county option”) to adopt the mail ballot system.  The State Association of Clerks and Recorders have come out in support of the proposal, calling the proposal their “top legislative priority” in the face of increased use by voters, higher costs, administrative difficulties, and the potential for higher turnout.  The group previously supported legislation calling for a “county option” in the 2009 Legislature, and proposed a similar draft bill to the State Administration and Veterans Affairs (SAVA) interim committee in June 2010. [Read more…] about Montana Eyes Voting By Mail

Weekly Wrap Up

· ·

Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in election law.

– The Hawaiian Office of Elections has set May 22nd as their target date for a special election to replace Congressman Neil Abercrombie.  Due to that state’s budget troubles, the election will be held entirely by mail. For an overview of Hawaii’s recent election problems, go here.

– Senators Chris Dodd and Tom Udall have proposed a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision.  The amendment would allow the federal and state governments to place limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to a candidate and on the amount of expenditures that can be made by a candidate.

– A Georgia program for verifying voters’ citizenship has ruffled some feathers over at the Department of Justice.  Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ has the right to stop any state election administration laws from taking effect.  The DOJ has objected to the Georgian program, as it claims the state has not demonstrated that the program does not have a discriminatory purpose.

– The ALCU has appealed a federal court ruling that upheld Montana’s ballot access laws.  Independent candidates seeking to run for statewide office in Montana must meet some of the stringent requirements in the country, including an early filing deadline and steep filing fees.

However there is no doubt that the honour in discovering that the appendix was http://buyresearchpapers.net the root of so many abdominal inflammations went to american surgeons.