Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Montana Voters May Be Denied Chance to Decide Fate of Elections

By James Doull

2-minute read

Supporters of electoral reform in Montana may have to curb their expectations this November. Legislative Referendum Number 127, which would revise the state’s primary elections, is being fiercely contested. Opponents have filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to have it removed from the ballot.

The Montana Primary Election Revision Measure, LR-127 for short, is a legislative referendum that would restructure Montana’s state primary elections into a nonpartisan top-two system, similar to those in Washington state and California. The top-two system allows all candidates to appear on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters move on to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Top-two essentially gives the electorate more control over the process by allowing voters to pick who ends up on the general election ballot.

However, LR-127 has come under fire by many Montanans. A large alliance of petitioners want to take it off the ballot and have filed a lawsuit to have it removed.

The plaintiffs in the case stated 3 main reasons why the measure should be removed:

First, the Title of the measure is too long. Under Montana law, only 100 words may appear in the Title of a ballot measure. LR-127’s Title contains 196 words -- about the amount you’ve read in this article so far. This is because the state included in the title every code section that would be amended by the new law.

The state argues that these code numbers should not count as words. However, the facts don’t appear to be on the state’s side. The petitioners cite multiple sources in their brief which seem to indicate that numbers can count as words. Furthermore, at nearly double the allowed quantity, LR-127’s text is not even “in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements.”

The petitioners next argued that the measure contains more than one subject. A legislative referendum may only include a single subject.

The legal brief declares:

“Its purpose is to manifestly change the election laws in at least two separate and substantial ways: 1) to provide for an open primary election system, and 2) to provide that the top two vote winners—and no other candidates—advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation…By placing these subjects on the ballot under the guise of a single subject, voters will be forced to vote for or against multiple independent propositions that they may not have voted for singly”

Critics also maintain that the top-two primary “essentially eliminates the right of third parties to appear on the general election ballot." Some further assert that the measure is an ulterior objective by the Republican Party to keep Libertarian and other third-party candidates out of the race, in order to reduce vote splitting.

While the petitioners’ claims regarding the referendum’s title length may be sound, the other objections seem more open to interpretation. In addition, the Montana House and State Senate have already approved LR-127, giving the petitioners the burden of proof. The outcome in Montana will be interesting; it has already highlighted voter concerns regarding top-two primaries and may set precedents for state elections to come.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Montana Voters May Be Denied Chance to Decide Fate of Elections

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us