Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bills would limit petition signatures to 'active' electors; opponents say change would conflict with constitution
Summary
HB597 and HB598 would restrict who can sign petitions to active electors (not 'inactive' voters); opponents, including the ACLU and tribal and youth organizations, argued the Montana Constitution defines a 'qualified elector' and that the bills could disenfranchise Native and young voters and invite litigation.
Representative Zach Worth opened hearings on HB597 and HB598, two related bills that would change which registered voters may sign initiative and referendum petitions by excluding electors placed on an "inactive" list or by requiring signers to be "active" electors.
Opponents, including SK Rossi of the ACLU of Montana and representatives of tribal communities and youth-engagement groups, said the Montana Constitution defines a "qualified elector" as an 18‑year‑old meeting registration and residency requirements and argued that inactive electors remain qualified under existing constitutional language. SK Rossi said any statutory attempt to narrow the class of petition signers would likely run afoul of the Constitution or lead to litigation, and raised practical objections — local "inactive" lists fluctuate across election cycles and would create arbitrary barriers to petition drives.
Tribal witnesses argued the bills would disproportionately harm Native American communities and young voters who move frequently or are more likely to be administratively placed on inactive lists. Forward Montana and other civic groups emphasized that a recent court decision had required the secretary of state to accept signatures from inactive voters in a prior initiative verification dispute.
Austin James of the Secretary of State’s office told the committee that some legal ambiguity exists: the constitution refers to registration and residency "as provided by law," and statute and court decisions have not fully resolved whether inactive electors are disqualified for petition signature purposes; he said that in instances where someone signs a petition believing they are eligible but is ineligible, the signature is not counted.
Supporters (including the Montana Family Foundation) urged statutory clarity so petition signers and sponsors know who counts as a valid signer. Opponents urged the committee not to pass statutory changes that would alter the practical operation of ballot initiatives without constitutional amendment or further legal review.
