MEA v State of Montana Fox Montana Voting Rights Ballot Initiative
MEA v. State of Montana, Fox, Montana Voting Rights Ballot Initiative ... Legal Advocacy
AARP’s amicus brief likely helped to persuade the Montana Supreme Court to call for corrections in the proposed November 2014 referendum; but such changes are likely to be quite limited. Thus, unfortunately, the possibility remains that Montana voters will have a chance to abandon their experiment with same-day registration. So far, there is no evidence the state’s SDR regime has caused electoral fraud and strong evidence that it has made it easier for many older and younger Montanans to register and vote.
Montana Voting Rights Ballot Initiative Must be Changed
Read AARP's (PDF) In Montana, a proposed voter referendum to eliminate election day or “same-day” voter registration -- challenged as misleading and inaccurate -- was ordered by the state supreme court to be clarified before being placed on the state’s ballot.Background
In 2005, Montana joined a small group of states that permit voters to register to vote and cast a ballot on election day. Consistent opposition to “same-day” registration (SDR) has failed to repeal this right, which AARP has long supported as a means to increase electoral participation. But in 2013 the state legislature passed a measure to place a same-day registration repeal referendum on the ballot in November 2014. The referendum’s text asserted it would make changes necessary to comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), in the event SDR was abandoned. A court petition challenging this assertion, and thus the referendum, as misleading and inaccurate, drew amicus brief support from AARP and several Montana-based electoral reform groups. The state’s highest court agreed with the challengers that the state’s voter registration laws already comply with the NVRA. Hence, the court directed the state attorney general to clarify the referendum’s language before placing the measure on the ballot.What s at Stake
Attorneys with AARP Foundation Litigation filed AARP’s friend-of-the-court brief in Montana, arguing that the NVRA only exempted from its requirements the few states that already had same-day registration when it was enacted. As for other states, – like Montana - that enacted same-day registration in the future, however, the NVRA did not include such an exemption for states. Congress favored giving states already in the same-day registration camp a break. The NVRA’s text and history make clear, that Congress acquiesced to opponents of same-day registration by omitting a proposed exemption for future adopters, and thus an incentive for states to enact same-day registration. Thus, the suggestion that eliminating same-day registration would require further alterations to Montana law was completely inaccurate. AARP has long supported same-day registration as one of many possible tools states can adopt to enhance electoral participation. Indeed, available data show that same-day voter registration has been successful in encouraging electoral participation in the few states to implement it.AARP’s amicus brief likely helped to persuade the Montana Supreme Court to call for corrections in the proposed November 2014 referendum; but such changes are likely to be quite limited. Thus, unfortunately, the possibility remains that Montana voters will have a chance to abandon their experiment with same-day registration. So far, there is no evidence the state’s SDR regime has caused electoral fraud and strong evidence that it has made it easier for many older and younger Montanans to register and vote.