Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voter Registration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony for and against optional party preference on registration
Summary
Sen. Trevis said SB129 would let voters voluntarily add party preference to voter-registration records and precinct lists, effective Jan. 1, 2026; tribal representatives and longtime party operatives opposed, citing privacy burdens and partisan advantage, while the Secretary of State's office provided technical context.
Sen. Matt Trevis (Senate District 10) told the House State Administration committee that Senate Bill 129 would allow electors to add a voluntary political-party preference on their voter-registration forms and for party affiliation to appear on certified lists and precinct registers if present in the voter record. The sponsor said the measure aligns with existing ballot-access rules and set the bill’s effective date to Jan. 1, 2026 to allow transition time.
Opponents urged the committee to be cautious. Patrick Yawaki, representing the Blackfeet Tribe, Fort Belknap and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, said SB129 "creates more of a burden on the Montana electorate" and risks importing partisan politics into elections that Montanans expect to be simple and nonpartisan. Evan Barrett, a long-time party operative and former state party staffer, told the committee volunteers will be reluctant to record party affiliation and argued the provision as drafted would advantage one party in the current political climate. "The end result of this bill will be to strengthen the election efforts of one political party," Barrett said.
Austin James, speaking for Secretary of State Christy Jacobson, described the technical side: the office controls which fields are provided in the registration database and the design of the form; the independent option is not currently a "qualified political party" but could qualify in the future. Committee members asked about burdens on county clerks and the privacy implications; the sponsor emphasized the voluntary nature of the field and said voters could opt not to update existing registrations.
The hearing record shows both opposition and technical testimony but no committee vote during the session. The committee closed public testimony and did not record final action on SB129 in the transcript.
Next steps: Hearing closed; committee action not recorded in transcript.
