The Appeals Court’s decision to block Montana’s double voting law has significant implications for voter rights and election integrity.
At a Glance
- Montana’s House Bill 892 aimed to prevent double voting.
- The bill mandated voters to de-register from other states.
- Violators faced fines and imprisonment.
- The Appeals Court upheld a block on the law over voter suppression concerns.
Montana’s Double Voting Law Blocked
A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed a block on Montana’s House Bill 892, a law designed to prevent double voting by requiring voters to de-register from other states. The law was challenged under concerns that it could suppress voter turnout and infringe on constitutional rights. Initially blocked by U.S. District Judge Brian Morris, the Appeals Court upheld this decision, citing potential overbreadth and infringement on constitutional rights.
This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over voting regulations in the United States, raising questions about how best to balance electoral security and voter accessibility.
The Appeals Court’s panel of judges stressed that the law could deter individuals from registering to vote due to the threat of criminal penalties. “The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their overbreadth claim,” U.S. Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Lucy H. Koh said. The law is thus seen as criminalizing a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its limited scope.
Key Concerns with HB 892
Montana’s House Bill 892 explicitly aims to curb double voting by requiring voters to ensure they are not registered in multiple jurisdictions. Those found violating the law could face fines up to $5,000 and up to 18 months in prison. However, critics argue that HB 892’s language is too vague, making it unclear how voters can sufficiently de-register from other states. Montana election law also does not participate in any national database to manage these registrations, adding another layer of complexity.
Quote: “Because HB 892 would discourage individuals from registering to vote in Montana by threatening criminal penalties for doing so, HB 892 carries the risk of irreparable harm to plaintiffs,” the ruling said. “However, as stated, HB 892 does not change Montana’s voter registration practices. Rather, it relies on criminal penalties and deterrence for its enforcement. And double voting is already a crime. These facts undermine defendants’ argument that enjoying the statute will compromise the integrity of elections.” – Link
Republicans backing the bill argued it was necessary to ensure voting integrity, especially after 14 suspected cases of double voting surfaced during the 2020 general election. They assert that existing laws against double voting are not sufficient, hence the need for House Bill 892.
The 9th Circuit of Appeals agreed with a federal judge in Montana: House Bill 892, which purports to stop double voting, is unconstitutional, vague and redundant. (Reporting by @DarrellEhrlick )https://t.co/LWAKMk8ROl
— Daily Montanan (@daily_montanan) September 3, 2024
Court’s Perspective and Future Implications
The Ninth Circuit agreed with Judge Morris’ assessment, stating that the law’s vague language could unlawfully deter voter registration, thereby infringing on the public’s fundamental right to vote. “The district court reasoned, and we agree, that the ‘ability of Montana voters to register to vote without fear of felony criminal penalties’ implicates the public’s interest in ‘exercising the fundamental political right to vote,’” the panel of judges wrote in the opinion.
Quote: “The Court’s ruling protects Montanans and their constitutional rights by ensuring that a simple act — registering to vote — does not turn Montana citizens into felons,” said Amanda Curtis, president of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which is one of the plaintiffs. – Link
The litigation and subsequent ruling on Montana’s HB 892 may set a precedent for future voter registration laws. Other states observing this case may take guidance on maintaining electoral integrity while also safeguarding the constitutional rights of voters. The decision could also influence upcoming legislative sessions, highlighting the need for clarity and fairness in voting laws.
Sources:
1. Appeals Court Upholds Block on Montana Double Voting Law
2. Federal appeals court says Montana’s ‘double voting’ law is vague, redundant
3. Appeals Court Upholds Block On Montana Double Voting Law
