Two citizen presenters told the SABA Committee on Friday that Montana’s publicly available voter-roll data are incomplete and contain enough anomalies that they enable known instances of improper voting and prevent public audits.

Dave Nims, a retired aerospace engineer who said he supports the Montana Election Integrity Project, told the committee that his group purchased a subscription to download the state voter-roll dataset and that his repeated analyses have identified “dozens” of instances that appear improper. "Election fraud in Montana," he said, adding, "Not a whole lot that I can confirm, but yes." Nims told senators he found mismatches between the number of ballots counted and the number of voters shown in the datasets, and he urged the committee to create a legislative subcommittee to examine the records.

Why it matters: Nims and another presenter, Mary Beveridge, said the problems prevent public or official reconciliation of ballots to voters and show systemic data gaps. They told senators those gaps have already prompted a recount in Silver Bow County and remain unresolved in multiple counties, which the presenters said risks public confidence in election outcomes.

Nims said the publicly sold dataset excludes some classes of data the state keeps, including records of provisional ballots, confidential voters and records of voters who are no longer registered; he said that omission creates large discrepancies in counties where provisional ballots were used. "Can the public audit the elections? The answer is no with the available data," Nims said. He urged the Secretary of State to publish complete voter histories and for the legislature to require county reconciliation reports that match voters to counted ballots.

Mary Beveridge, who identified herself as the founder of the Montana Voter Integrity Project and a long‑time election monitor, walked the committee through state statutory definitions she said are inconsistent and lead to confusion about who should receive mail ballots and how voters are classified. Beveridge pointed senators to multiple sections of Title 13 of the Montana election code where the terms "elector," "qualified voter" and "active/inactive" are used inconsistently. She recommended clearer definitions and changes in statute so that, she said, "we know who we're really sending these ballots out to." Beveridge also urged statutory changes to address noncitizen registration, residency verification and how to handle matches that come back as "deceased" or "multiple matches" from DMV or Social Security verifications.

Specific claims and examples presented to the committee
- Nims said the Montana Election Integrity Project and allied analysts purchased a subscription to the state voter-roll data for about $5,000 and have downloaded roughly 250 datasets for analysis.
- He told the committee he identified "dozens" of potentially fraudulent votes in 2024, and examples he presented included: roughly 2,000 provisionally counted votes in Gallatin County that do not appear in the public dataset; a roughly 1,000‑voter discrepancy in Silver Bow that prompted a recount; an 8% discrepancy reported for Bighorn County and an 18% discrepancy in its primary; more than 700 registered voters who appear matched to deceased records; and roughly 340 instances where an individual appears registered and recorded as having voted under two IDs.
- Nims also raised concerns about Montana’s use of a vendor identified as ConEqu to manage UOCAVA (military/overseas) ballots and noted publicity about server‑location issues reported in connection with that company. He said the presence of electronic submission channels increases vulnerability to manipulation of submitted data.

Presenters’ suggested fixes and legislative steps
- Nims recommended the Secretary of State provide a complete public dataset that includes full voting history and provisional/confidential voter indicators and require counties to submit reconciliation reports that match each voter to a counted ballot. He proposed that the Legislature create a subcommittee to oversee audits and require that the Secretary of State and counties produce the reconciliation records.
- Beveridge recommended statutory clarifications in Title 13 to harmonize the definitions of "elector," "voter," "qualified voter" and the treatment of inactive lists; changes to mail‑ballot rules so that stubs and reconciliation steps are available for audits; clearer rules on verification outcomes from DMV and Social Security checks (single match, multiple match, deceased, etc.); and statutory direction on how election administrators should proceed when registrations return abnormal verification codes.

Committee response and next steps
- Committee members asked presenters for their slide materials; Chair Manzella and staff confirmed the committee would receive copies. Several senators asked technical follow-up questions about whether data discrepancies might be due to differences between the subscription dataset and county data; presenters replied that the subscription data appear consistent but incomplete and that some counties maintain additional records the public dataset omits. Nims said some counties cooperated with the analysts and others did not.
- No formal legislative action or vote was taken at the hearing. Presenters urged the committee to use its constitutional authority to "ensure the purity of elections" and to consider a subcommittee or staff assignment to replicate the presenters’ data checks using state resources.

Ending: The committee heard additional agency presentations after the citizen testimony and took no formal vote on the presenters’ recommendations during the session.

Speakers quoted in this article are from the February committee hearing's transcript and are identified by name and role as given in the record.