The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Electronic Signatures Not Good Enough for Montana Candidate Nomination Petitions
From today's Montana Supreme Court opinion in Meyer v. Jacobson, written by Justice Beth Baker and joined by Justices Mike McGrath, James Jeremiah Shea, Dirk Sandefur, and Jim Rice:
John Meyer sought to run as an Independent candidate for Montana Attorney General in the 2020 general election, but the Gallatin County Election Administrator (Administrator) denied his petition for nomination forms because they contained only electronic signatures….
That rejection was correct under Montana election law, the majority held:
There is one Section within [Montana election law]—the Montana Absent Uniformed Services and Overseas Voter Act—that expressly authorizes the use of "digital signatures" for active-duty United States military members and United States citizens residing outside the United States but eligible to vote. The Act limits the use of digital signatures to "proof that the voter is the sender when the voter is electronically transmitting" a federal postcard application, an application for voter registration, a request for an absentee ballot, or the voter's marked ballot. The Act expressly provides that "[a]n election administrator shall verify a digital signature received pursuant to this section and accept a validated digital signature as proof that a document has been transmitted by the voter." The Act also mandates that the Secretary adopt rules regarding electronic registration and voting.
[Montana election law] does not, by contrast, define "signature" or its relation to electronic signatures in the context of petitions. We cannot assume, therefore, that the Legislature intended a "signature" to encompass the definition of an "electronic signature" for purposes of ballot petitions….
And the court held that the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which Montana adopted, doesn't apply here, because by its text it covers "only transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means." "Though the signers may have agreed to transact electronically with Meyer, the Secretary [of State] did not."
The court noted that courts in Massachusetts, Utah, and West Virginia had allowed electronic signatures, but concluded that this stemmed from the particular circumstances and statutory schemes in those cases, and didn't apply to the Montana statutes.
Justice Laurie McKinnon, joined by Justice Ingrid Gustafson, dissented on procedural grounds (she believed the challenge was moot). Congratulations to Dale Schowengerdt and E. Lars Phillips (Crowley Fleck PLLP), Austin Markus James (Montana Secretary of State Chief Legal Counsel), and Erin L. Arnold (Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, Gallatin County), who represented the defendants.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am anything but an expert on Montana law of standing, but I am at a loss to see why this guy was allowed to bring a substantive challenge here.
Well, it has the advantage that he can't claim it was rejected out of hand due to political bias.
He challenges the rejection of his paperwork that prevented him from being added to the ballot. Do you not think that was sufficient injury?
He didn't submit enough signatures to qualify even if they had accepted them. So no.
I see this in the dissent:
but the summary in the opinion says
Not five signatures, five petition forms with signatures.
The petition forms Montana uses permit some number of attached signature pages with ten signatures per page. Meyer needed about 16000 signatures total and it isn't clear how many he had when he filed his complaint in March, but he still had five more months to collect them before the certification deadline.
Both the dissent and the answering brief say that he submitted five signatures, total: they cite Meyer's own opening brief and affidavit for this proposition, but those aren't available online.
What is your basis for saying he submitted more than five signatures?
"five petition for nomination forms"
is my basis for saying what I did say, which is that I didn't know how many signatures there were since each form could be accompanied by an arbitrary number of signatures. I'll accept a more authoritative source if you've found one.
Even so, it remains there were months left to collect more. I can understand submitting a few early as a test so there would be time to challenge an adverse administrative ruling.
John Mayer? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Ov0cDPZy8
That electronic signatures are allowed at all will never not amaze me.