Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs election procedures. The process for a write-in candidate to be placed on the ballot involves specific statutory requirements. While a write-in candidate does not need to file a declaration of candidacy or pay a filing fee, they must receive a sufficient number of votes in the primary election to be considered for the general election ballot. The threshold for this is defined by Montana law, which states that a write-in candidate must receive votes equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast for that office in the preceding general election for the same office. For example, if an office in the preceding general election received 10,000 votes, a write-in candidate for that office in the current election cycle would need to receive at least 500 write-in votes in the primary to be officially recognized as a candidate for the general election. This is distinct from the requirements for declared candidates who file formally. The intent of this provision is to ensure that only write-in candidates with demonstrated support can proceed to the general election, preventing frivolous candidacies and maintaining the integrity of the ballot. This percentage is a critical metric for write-in eligibility in Montana.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. The question pertains to the process of challenging absentee ballots. Montana law outlines specific timelines and procedures for challenging an absentee ballot. A challenge must be made in writing and filed with the county election official. The law specifies that such a challenge must be based on specific grounds, such as the voter not being eligible or the ballot not being properly executed. While there is a general timeframe for absentee voting to begin and end, the specific window for lodging a formal challenge to an already cast absentee ballot is tied to the period after the ballot is received by the election official and before the election results are canvassed. Montana law does not provide a broad, open-ended period for challenging absentee ballots after the election has concluded and results are certified. Instead, challenges are typically addressed during the counting process or through post-election procedures like recounts or contests, which have their own statutory deadlines. The core principle is that challenges must be timely and follow prescribed procedures to be valid. For instance, MCA § 13-15-201 addresses election contests, which is a formal legal process to challenge election results or specific ballots, and these contests have strict filing deadlines, usually within a specified number of days after the election results are declared. Therefore, the concept of challenging an absentee ballot after the canvass is generally not permissible under the standard election procedures without invoking a formal contest or recount, which have defined statutory limitations.

The Montana Election Code, specifically concerning the conduct of elections and the responsibilities of election officials, outlines procedures for handling ballots that are improperly marked or damaged. Montana law aims to preserve the intent of the voter while ensuring the integrity of the ballot. When a voter marks a ballot in a way that it cannot be readily counted by an electronic tabulating device, or if the ballot is accidentally defaced, the election judges are empowered to assist. This assistance involves a specific process: two election judges, of opposing political parties if possible, must jointly examine the ballot. They then prepare a new ballot, transferring the voter’s marked choices onto the new ballot, ensuring the voter’s intent is accurately reflected. This process is documented, and the original ballot is preserved with the new ballot. This procedure is designed to prevent disenfranchisement due to minor ballot errors while maintaining a clear audit trail. It is crucial for election judges to understand these procedures to ensure fair and accurate vote tabulation in Montana.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs the process of challenging election results. A candidate seeking to contest an election must file a petition with the appropriate district court within a specified timeframe. This petition must outline the grounds for the contest, which typically involve allegations of fraud, malconduct, or errors in the tabulation that materially affected the outcome of the election. The filing deadline is crucial; under Montana law, a contest of a general or special election must be filed within 30 days after the last result is officially declared. For primary elections, this period is generally shorter, often within 10 days after the votes are canvassed. The court then reviews the petition to determine if it states a valid cause of action. If it does, a summons is issued, and the respondent (typically the winning candidate or the election official) is required to answer. The court has the authority to recount ballots or conduct further investigation as deemed necessary. The ultimate goal is to ascertain the true vote count and ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Failure to adhere to the strict filing deadlines or to adequately state the grounds for the contest will result in the dismissal of the petition.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. Regarding the canvassing of election results, MCA §13-15-101 outlines the duties of the county election canvassing board. This board is responsible for examining the returns from each precinct and determining the vote count for each candidate and ballot measure. The process involves comparing the tally sheets with the ballot stubs and other election records. A key aspect of this process is the handling of discrepancies. While the law mandates that the board canvass all returns, it also provides for the correction of manifest errors. MCA §13-15-103 addresses the correction of clerical errors. If a manifest error is discovered, such as a miscalculation or a mistake in transcribing numbers, the board has the authority to correct it. However, this correction must be made in the presence of the public and documented. The law is clear that the board cannot alter the vote as cast by the electors. The canvassing board’s role is to accurately reflect the votes cast, not to re-interpret or change them. Therefore, if a precinct’s tally sheet shows a candidate received 100 votes, but the ballots themselves clearly indicate 150 votes for that candidate, the board’s duty is to correct the tally sheet to reflect the 150 votes, assuming the ballots are otherwise valid and the discrepancy is a clear clerical mistake in the tally. The board does not have the authority to decide that the ballots themselves are invalid due to the discrepancy, nor can it simply ignore the discrepancy. The correction is to align the tally with the ballots.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. Regarding absentee voting, MCA §13-13-112 outlines the process for requesting an absentee ballot. A voter can request an absentee ballot by mail, in person at the county election office, or through a designated agent. The law specifies that a voter may request an absentee ballot for a specific election or for all elections in a calendar year. When a voter requests an absentee ballot for all elections in a calendar year, the county election official is required to mail an application for an absentee ballot for each subsequent election to the voter’s registered address. This process ensures that voters who anticipate being absent for multiple elections can streamline their voting process. The critical element is the timely submission of the application and the verification of the voter’s eligibility by the county election official. Montana law does not permit a voter to designate a specific agent to pick up their ballot for them unless they are a resident of a nursing home or hospital, or are physically unable to travel to the polling place or absentee ballot drop-off location. The general absentee ballot request process is designed to maintain ballot secrecy and security.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs election procedures. When a recount is requested, the process is initiated by a petition. For a statewide recount, the petition must be signed by a number of electors equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast for the office in the preceding general election. For a recount of a legislative or local office, the threshold is 10% of the total votes cast for that specific office in the preceding general election. The law also specifies the timing for filing such petitions, typically within a few days after the official election results are declared. The purpose of these thresholds is to ensure that recount requests are supported by a significant portion of the electorate, thereby preventing frivolous or politically motivated recounts that could unduly burden the election administration and taxpayer resources. The process involves careful verification of signatures and adherence to strict timelines to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the electoral system. The specific number of signatures required is a critical component of this petition process, directly impacting the feasibility and legitimacy of a recount. For instance, if a statewide office received 500,000 votes in the previous general election, a recount petition would need at least 25,000 valid signatures.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. When a candidate for a partisan office withdraws after the deadline for filing for a primary election but before the primary election is held, the process for filling the vacancy on the general election ballot is dictated by statute. MCA 13-10-202 outlines the procedures for withdrawal and replacement of candidates. If a candidate withdraws, the political party, through its state central committee, can nominate a replacement. This replacement must be certified to the appropriate election official, the Secretary of State for statewide offices or county election officials for local offices, within a specified timeframe to ensure the ballot can be prepared accurately. The key is that the party organization retains the authority to fill the vacancy created by the withdrawal, maintaining the partisan nature of the election. The process ensures that voters have a choice representing the party, even if the original nominee is unable to proceed. This procedure is distinct from independent candidate nominations or ballot access challenges.

The scenario describes a situation where a county clerk in Montana receives a petition for a local ballot initiative. Montana law, specifically under Title 13, Chapter 35 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the process for initiating legislation and constitutional amendments at the state and local levels. For local initiatives, the relevant statutes dictate the requirements for petition circulation, signature verification, and submission deadlines. The question tests the understanding of the clerk’s duty to verify the signatures on the petition against the registered elector rolls within their jurisdiction. This verification process is crucial to ensure that only valid signatures from registered electors are counted towards the threshold required for the initiative to qualify for the ballot. The clerk’s responsibility is to determine if the petition meets the statutory requirements for submission to the county governing body or the appropriate election official. Montana law requires a specific number of valid signatures from registered electors within the political subdivision for which the initiative is proposed. The clerk must adhere to the established procedures for checking the validity of each signature, which includes confirming the elector’s registration status and residency within the designated area. The clerk does not have the authority to judge the merits or constitutionality of the proposed initiative at this stage; their role is procedural, focused on signature validity and adherence to submission requirements. Therefore, the clerk’s primary action upon receiving the petition is to undertake the signature verification process as mandated by law.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. When a candidate withdraws from a primary election ballot after the deadline for ballot preparation but before the election itself, the process for handling their name on the ballot is detailed. According to MCA 13-12-204, if a candidate dies or withdraws after the ballots have been printed, the election official must provide voters with a printed or written notice at each polling place stating that the candidate’s name is on the ballot but that votes for that candidate will not be counted. This ensures transparency and informs voters about the candidate’s status. The law does not permit the removal of the name from already printed ballots, nor does it allow for a replacement candidate to be added to the printed ballot without reprinting, which is often impractical. The core principle is to inform the electorate about the situation to prevent disenfranchisement or confusion.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs election procedures. When considering the process of challenging a voter’s eligibility, the statutes outline specific requirements for who can initiate such a challenge and the grounds upon which it can be based. A challenge must be brought by an elector of the county where the voter is registered. The grounds for challenge are typically limited to specific disqualifications, such as not meeting residency requirements, not being a citizen, being convicted of a felony and not having civil rights restored, or being declared mentally incompetent. The law emphasizes that these challenges must be based on factual evidence, not mere suspicion or political opposition. The process involves filing a written statement with the county election administrator, detailing the grounds for the challenge and providing supporting evidence. The challenged voter is then notified and given an opportunity to respond. The county election administrator or a designated election judge then conducts a hearing to determine the validity of the challenge. This process is designed to ensure the integrity of the voter rolls while providing due process to the challenged individual. It is crucial to understand that a challenge cannot be based on a voter’s political affiliation or their voting history, as these are not statutory grounds for disqualification in Montana. The focus is strictly on whether the individual meets the legal qualifications to be registered and vote in a particular precinct.

Montana law, specifically the provisions within the Montana Election Code, governs the process of ballot tabulation and the handling of provisional ballots. When a voter casts a provisional ballot, it is not immediately counted. Instead, election officials must verify the voter’s eligibility according to Montana statutes. This verification process involves checking the voter’s registration status, residency, and whether they are otherwise qualified to vote in that specific election and precinct. If the election judges or county election officials determine that the voter was eligible to cast the provisional ballot, it is then processed and counted along with other valid ballots. The Montana Election Code outlines specific timelines for this verification and the subsequent counting of provisional ballots. Failure to adhere to these procedures can lead to legal challenges regarding election integrity. The core principle is that provisional ballots serve as a safeguard for voters whose eligibility might be in question at the polling place, ensuring their vote is considered if they are indeed eligible. The law emphasizes that the county election official is responsible for the determination of eligibility.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures, including the certification of candidates for office. For a candidate to be certified for a partisan primary election, they must meet certain requirements related to their political party affiliation and the submission of a valid nominating petition or declaration of intent. MCA § 13-10-101 outlines the general qualifications for holding office, which include being a U.S. citizen and a resident of Montana for at least one year. More specifically, MCA § 13-10-201 details the process for filing for a partisan nomination. This statute requires candidates to file a declaration of intent to become a candidate and to have affiliated with a political party for a specified period prior to filing. For a candidate seeking to run in a partisan primary, this affiliation period is crucial. The law mandates that a person must have been affiliated with the political party for at least 30 days prior to filing the declaration of intent. This ensures that the candidate genuinely belongs to the party they seek to represent in the general election. Failure to meet this affiliation requirement would render the candidate ineligible for certification for that party’s nomination in the primary. Therefore, a candidate who declares their affiliation with the “Unity Party” only 15 days before filing their declaration of intent for the Republican primary would not meet the statutory affiliation requirement.

Montana law, specifically concerning the conduct of elections and the role of election judges, is governed by Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). The appointment and qualification of election judges are detailed in MCA § 13-4-101. This statute outlines that the county superintendent of schools, in consultation with the county board of commissioners, appoints election judges for each precinct. These judges must be electors of the county, able to read and write the English language, and must not have been convicted of any felony or election crime. Furthermore, MCA § 13-4-105 specifies the oath of office that election judges must take before commencing their duties. This oath typically includes a pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge their duties, to support the constitution of the United States and the state of Montana, and to cause the laws of Montana relating to elections to be observed and obeyed. The selection process aims to ensure impartiality and competence, with a requirement for at least one judge from each of the two dominant political parties in the state, as per MCA § 13-4-102, unless specific circumstances or precinct sizes dictate otherwise. The statutory framework emphasizes that election judges are public officials entrusted with the integrity of the voting process, and their conduct is subject to legal scrutiny and defined procedures.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs election procedures. When a recount is requested, the process is initiated by a candidate or a political party that meets specific criteria. For a statewide office, a recount can be requested if the margin of victory is less than one-half of one percent (\(0.5\%\)) of the total votes cast for the office. For a legislative or judicial district office, the margin must be less than one percent (\(1\%\)) of the total votes cast. If these conditions are met, the requesting party must typically provide a bond to cover the costs, though waivers may be possible under certain circumstances. The Secretary of State, or the county election official for local races, then oversees the recount. The recount process itself involves a manual review of ballots by election officials, adhering to strict protocols to ensure accuracy and impartiality. This process is distinct from a simple audit, as it involves a complete re-examination of the ballots. The legal framework ensures that recounts are conducted in a manner that upholds the integrity of the electoral process and provides a verifiable outcome when the initial results are exceptionally close. The threshold for requesting a recount is a critical aspect of election law, balancing the need for accuracy with the administrative burden of conducting a recount.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. The process for challenging an election result typically involves filing a petition with the appropriate court. For a statewide office, this would be the Montana Supreme Court. For other offices, it would be the district court in the county where the election results are to be canvassed or where the respondent resides. The grounds for a contest are generally limited to irregularities that materially affect the election outcome. Montana law requires a certain number of electors to sign the petition, which varies depending on the office being contested. For a statewide office, the petition must be signed by at least 500 registered electors who voted in the election. The petition must be filed within a specific timeframe after the election results are certified. The law also outlines the procedures for serving notice to the contestee and the conduct of the proceedings, including the potential for recounting ballots. The core principle is that the challenge must demonstrate that irregularities occurred and that these irregularities were significant enough to potentially alter the outcome of the election.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. When considering the process of challenging election results, particularly concerning allegations of irregularities that might affect the outcome, the relevant statutes outline specific procedures and timelines. Montana Code Annotated Section 13-15-201 addresses the contest of elections and specifies the grounds upon which an election can be contested, including malconduct or fraud by election officials or election judges, or that the election returns were, in fact, fraudulent or erroneous. The law requires that a contest must be initiated within a specified period after the results are declared. The question revolves around the proper venue for filing such a contest. Montana law dictates that election contests are generally filed in the district court of the county in which the election was held. However, if the contest involves a statewide office or a multi-county issue, the venue might be adjusted. In the scenario presented, the challenge pertains to a specific county’s election results. Therefore, the appropriate venue for filing the election contest petition is the district court of that particular county. This ensures that the judicial review is conducted in the jurisdiction most familiar with the local election administration and where the alleged irregularities occurred. The timing of the filing is also crucial, typically within 30 days of the official canvass completion, as per MCA 13-15-201(2), though the question focuses on venue.

Montana law, specifically concerning the certification of election results and the potential for recounts, is governed by statutes that outline the procedures and conditions under which a recount can be initiated. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 13, Elections, addresses these matters. For a recount to be mandated in a statewide election in Montana, the margin of victory between the top two candidates must be within a specific percentage of the total votes cast for those candidates. This threshold is designed to ensure that recounts are reserved for genuinely close contests where a small number of votes could alter the outcome. If the difference between the leading candidate and the second-place candidate is less than or equal to one-half of one percent (\(0.5\%\)) of the total votes cast for those two candidates, a mandatory recount is triggered. This is a critical aspect of election integrity, balancing the need for accuracy with the practicalities of conducting recounts. The specific calculation involves determining the total votes cast for the top two candidates, finding one-half of one percent of that total, and then comparing the difference in votes between the two candidates to this calculated threshold. For instance, if Candidate A received 100,000 votes and Candidate B received 99,600 votes in a statewide race, the total votes cast for these two candidates is \(100,000 + 99,600 = 199,600\). One-half of one percent of this total is \(199,600 \times 0.005 = 998\). The difference in votes between Candidate A and Candidate B is \(100,000 – 99,600 = 400\). Since 400 is less than 998, a mandatory recount would be required under Montana law. The law also provides for a candidate-initiated recount if they pay for it, but the question specifically asks about a mandatory recount based on the vote margin.

Montana law outlines specific procedures for the handling of absentee ballots. When an absentee ballot is returned to the county election office, it is first verified to ensure the voter’s signature on the return envelope matches the signature on file, as per Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 13-13-112. The ballot is then kept in a secure location until the tabulation process begins. Tabulation of absentee ballots can commence on the morning of Election Day, as established by MCA 13-13-114. Crucially, the ballots are not opened or counted until the polls close at 8:00 PM on Election Day, regardless of when they were received. This ensures that no absentee vote is known before the polls close, preserving the secrecy and integrity of the election process. The process involves a bipartisan team of election judges opening the outer envelope, verifying the voter’s identity, and then separating the ballot from the return envelope before it is counted. This multi-step process is designed to prevent any undue influence or knowledge of individual vote tallies before the general public is able to cast their ballots.

The scenario presented involves a county election official in Montana who discovers a discrepancy in the voter registration database. Specifically, a voter who has moved within the same county is flagged as having potentially moved out of state due to an outdated address record from a previous election. Montana law, particularly under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), addresses voter registration maintenance and the process for updating or canceling registrations. MCA 13-2-117 outlines the procedures for removing voters from the rolls, which typically involves a notification process. If a voter fails to respond to a confirmation notice sent to their last known address, and the notice is returned as undeliverable, the registration can be canceled. However, the law also provides for provisional ballots and other mechanisms to ensure eligible voters are not disenfranchised due to administrative errors or minor address changes within the same jurisdiction. The key is that a simple address update within the same county, without further evidence of the voter having moved out of Montana, should not automatically lead to cancellation. The election official’s duty is to follow the established procedures for address verification and, if necessary, send a confirmation notice. Without evidence of non-residency in Montana, the voter’s registration remains active, though the address needs updating. The correct course of action involves updating the address in the voter registration system and potentially sending a confirmation notice if the system requires it for address changes, but not immediate cancellation based solely on an old, unverified address within the same county. The core principle is maintaining accurate rolls while safeguarding the right to vote.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs the conduct of elections. The question pertains to the process of challenging absentee ballots. Montana law outlines specific procedures for handling questioned absentee ballots, including the role of election judges and the conditions under which a ballot can be challenged. A ballot can be challenged if the election judges have reason to believe it was not voted by the elector whose name appears on the envelope, or if the elector is not eligible to vote. The process involves the judges examining the affidavit on the absentee ballot envelope. If the judges determine there is probable cause to believe the ballot is invalid, they must endorse the envelope with the grounds for the challenge and the name of the challenger. The challenged ballot is then kept separate from other ballots. Crucially, the law provides for a hearing process where the elector whose ballot is challenged has the opportunity to present evidence. The final determination of the validity of a challenged absentee ballot rests with the election judges, who must follow the statutory procedures. The scenario describes a situation where election judges receive an absentee ballot with a questionable signature compared to the voter registration record. This directly triggers the statutory challenge process. The law mandates that if election judges have reason to believe the ballot was not voted by the elector, they must endorse the envelope with the grounds for the challenge and keep it separate. This procedure is designed to ensure the integrity of the absentee voting process by providing a mechanism to address potential fraud or error before the ballot is counted. The subsequent steps involve further review and potential adjudication, but the initial action by the judges is to formally note and segregate the challenged ballot.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs election procedures. Regarding the certification of election results, MCA §13-15-301 outlines the process for county canvassing boards. This board is responsible for examining the tally sheets and making any necessary corrections. Following the county canvass, the results are forwarded to the Montana Secretary of State for state-level canvassing, as detailed in MCA §13-15-302. The Secretary of State then officially declares the results of state-wide elections. The question probes the specific legal authority that is ultimately responsible for the final declaration of results for federal and state offices. While county election officials and boards play a crucial role in the initial tabulation and canvassing, the ultimate responsibility for the official certification and declaration of results for offices that appear on ballots across multiple counties, such as federal offices (e.g., U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives) and state offices (e.g., Governor, Attorney General), rests with the Secretary of State. This role is distinct from the county’s canvass and the preparation of tally sheets. The Secretary of State’s actions are the final step in confirming the statewide outcome of such elections.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs the conduct of elections. The scenario describes a situation where a candidate for a state legislative office in Montana is found to have accepted a campaign contribution from a foreign national. Montana law, consistent with federal law which generally prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to U.S. elections, would consider such a contribution illegal. The Secretary of State, as the chief election official in Montana, would be responsible for investigating such violations. The penalty for accepting an illegal campaign contribution can include fines, and in some cases, the invalidation of the election results or the disqualification of the candidate. The specific penalty would be determined by the nature and extent of the violation, as assessed by the relevant authorities, such as the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices or the courts. The core principle is that only eligible individuals and entities can contribute to campaigns to ensure the integrity of the electoral process and prevent undue foreign influence.

The scenario involves a county clerk in Montana who discovers a discrepancy in the voter registration data for an upcoming election. Specifically, the clerk finds that a number of individuals registered to vote are listed as having moved out of state according to a reliable third-party data source, but their registration status has not been updated in the state’s voter registration system. Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs voter registration and the maintenance of accurate voter rolls. MCA 13-2-117 outlines the procedures for maintaining the accuracy of voter registration records, including the process for removing voters who are no longer eligible. This statute, along with administrative rules promulgated by the Montana Secretary of State, details the notification and purging processes. When a county clerk identifies potential ineligibility, such as a voter moving out of state, the clerk must follow a specific protocol. This typically involves sending a confirmation notice to the voter’s last known address. If the notice is returned as undeliverable, or if the voter does not respond within a specified timeframe, the voter may be removed from the rolls. The question tests the understanding of the proactive steps a county clerk must take to ensure voter roll accuracy in accordance with Montana’s election laws before initiating any removal process. The correct action is to initiate a confirmation process, not to immediately purge or ignore the discrepancy. The clerk’s duty is to verify the information and provide the voter an opportunity to confirm their eligibility or update their address before removal.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs the conduct of elections. Regarding ballot access for independent candidates, Montana law requires a certain number of valid signatures on a petition. For a candidate seeking to appear on the general election ballot for a statewide office, the requirement is a percentage of the total votes cast for that office in the preceding general election. For the 2024 general election, the number of signatures required for an independent candidate for Governor is based on the votes cast for Governor in the 2022 general election. According to the Montana Secretary of State’s office, the total votes cast for Governor in the 2022 general election was 555,031. The statutory requirement for independent candidates for statewide office is 5% of the total votes cast for the office in the preceding general election. Therefore, the calculation is \(0.05 \times 555,031 = 27,751.55\). Since fractional signatures are not possible, the number of signatures must be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Thus, an independent candidate for Governor in Montana must submit at least 27,752 valid signatures. This process ensures that candidates demonstrate a significant level of support from the electorate before appearing on the general election ballot, promoting a balance between facilitating competition and maintaining the integrity of the election process. The deadline for submitting these petitions is also statutorily defined, typically in March preceding the general election, and the signatures must be collected from registered electors within Montana.

Montana law dictates specific procedures for challenging the validity of absentee ballots. Under Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 13, Chapter 19, concerning absent uniformed and overseas voters, and MCA Title 13, Chapter 13, concerning absentee voting generally, challenges to absentee ballots can arise from various grounds. These grounds typically relate to the voter’s eligibility, the proper completion of the ballot and envelope, or evidence of fraud or irregularity. A key aspect of the process involves the timeline for initiating such a challenge. Generally, a challenge must be filed with the county election official before the ballot is counted. The law specifies that a challenge can be made by any elector of the county who is registered to vote. The process involves presenting evidence to support the claim of invalidity. If a challenge is deemed valid by the election officials, the ballot may be rejected, and the voter notified. The grounds for challenge are not unlimited; they must be based on specific legal deficiencies. For instance, a challenge might be based on the assertion that the voter was not a resident of Montana at the time of casting the ballot, or that the ballot was not properly signed or witnessed as required by law. The county election official is responsible for adjudicating these challenges, often in consultation with the county attorney. The outcome of a challenge can significantly impact election results, especially in close contests. The law aims to balance the right to vote with the need to ensure election integrity and prevent fraudulent voting. The specific procedures and grounds are detailed within the Montana Election Code, providing a framework for the orderly resolution of disputes concerning absentee ballot validity.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs the process of challenging election results. A candidate or a group of electors may initiate a contest if they have probable cause to believe that fraud or error occurred which affected the outcome of an election. The Montana Supreme Court has established that the burden of proof rests with the contestant to demonstrate that the alleged fraud or error did, in fact, change the outcome of the election. This requires more than mere speculation or the identification of procedural irregularities; it necessitates a showing that the irregularities were substantial enough to alter the vote count. For instance, if a contestant alleges improper ballot handling, they must provide evidence that such handling resulted in a specific number of votes being miscounted or disenfranchised, and that this miscount would have changed the election’s result. The Montana Election Code outlines specific timelines for filing such contests and the procedures for conducting recounts or investigations. The principle is that election results should only be overturned if there is clear and convincing evidence that the integrity of the outcome has been compromised to the extent that the declared winner did not legitimately win.

The scenario describes a situation involving a local election in Montana where a candidate, Ms. Anya Sharma, is running for a county commissioner seat. She has been actively campaigning and has received campaign contributions from various sources. A key aspect of Montana election law is the regulation of campaign finance, specifically the reporting of contributions and expenditures. Montana law, under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), requires candidates and political committees to disclose financial activity related to elections. Specifically, MCA § 13-37-225 outlines the requirements for filing campaign finance reports, including the threshold for reporting individual contributions. For the purposes of this question, we assume that the reporting threshold for an individual contribution to be itemized on a campaign finance report is $150. Ms. Sharma received a contribution of $125 from an individual. According to Montana law, individual contributions below the reporting threshold do not need to be itemized on the campaign finance report. Therefore, Ms. Sharma is not required to list this specific $125 contribution in her itemized disclosure reports, although aggregate reporting of all contributions is still required. The question tests the understanding of the specific reporting threshold for individual contributions in Montana’s campaign finance regulations.

Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs election procedures. The question revolves around the process of challenging a candidate’s eligibility based on residency requirements for a specific office. Montana Code Annotated \(MCA\) 13-35-201 addresses election offenses, including making false statements under oath. \(MCA\) 13-1-111 defines residency for voting purposes, requiring an elector to reside in a precinct for at least 30 days. While the law doesn’t prescribe a specific calculation for determining residency duration in the context of a candidate’s eligibility challenge, it sets a minimum period. A challenge to a candidate’s eligibility based on residency would typically involve presenting evidence to the county election administrator or the Secretary of State, demonstrating that the candidate does not meet the statutory residency requirements for the office sought. The burden of proof would generally lie with the challenger. The specific duration of residency required for state legislative offices, for instance, is outlined in the Montana Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, which mandates that a representative must have resided in the state for at least two years and in the county or district for at least one year immediately preceding the election. The question tests the understanding of the interplay between general residency definitions and specific constitutional requirements for holding office, and the procedural aspects of lodging an eligibility challenge. There is no calculation required to arrive at the answer; rather, it requires knowledge of the legal framework for challenging candidate eligibility in Montana.

The scenario presented involves a county election official in Montana who has received a petition for a local ballot initiative. The initiative proposes to amend a county ordinance related to zoning regulations. Montana law, specifically under Title 13 of the Montana Code Annotated, governs election procedures, including those for local initiatives. The critical aspect here is the timeline for reviewing and approving the petition’s form and legal sufficiency. Montana law generally requires county election officials to review petitions for compliance with statutory requirements. While specific timelines can vary for different types of elections or petitions, the standard review period for ballot measure petitions often involves a determination of sufficiency within a set number of days after submission. For local initiatives, the county clerk or election official is responsible for this review. The question hinges on understanding the statutory timeframe within which such a review must be completed to ensure the initiative can proceed to the next stage, which typically involves signature verification and potential placement on the ballot. The Montana Code Annotated, particularly sections dealing with initiative and referendum procedures at the local level, outlines these procedural steps and deadlines. A thorough understanding of these provisions is necessary to correctly identify the permissible timeframe for the county election official’s review and determination of the petition’s legal sufficiency.