SCOTUS Declines to Hear GOP Request in Montana Voter Suppression Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case brought by Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R), who was seeking to revive two voter suppression laws targeting new voters and indigenous voters.
The laws were struck down by a trial court in 2022. Last March, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today means the laws will remain permanently blocked.
In 2021, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte (R) signed several new voting restriction bills into law. Gianforte cited election security, though the changes came after the state saw turnout surge in 2020. The Montana Democratic Party and other organizations filed lawsuits — ultimately consolidated into one — arguing that the laws violated the Montana Constitution.
S.B. 169 narrowed the types of voter IDs permitted, in particular limiting the use of student IDs. The law required voters without a government-issued photo ID or a state concealed carry permit to produce two forms of identification to cast a ballot. Voting rights advocates described S.B. 169 as a “modern-day poll tax” because of the financial barriers low-income Montanans face to pay for a government-issued ID.
H.B. 176 eliminated Election Day voter registration. In 2004, Montanans approved same-day voter registration as a ballot measure. To have the legislature and governor end it, a voting rights advocate said, was a “slap in the face.”
H.B. 530 banned certain types of ballot assistance, including paid absentee ballot collectors. Opponents of the law claimed this disproportionately harmed voters in Indian Country.
H.B. 506 prohibited mailing ballots to new voters who will be eligible to vote on Election Day but are not yet 18 years old.
After years of litigation, in March 2024 the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court decision striking down all four laws for violating the state constitution. On Aug. 24, 2024, Jacobsen appealed the state supreme court’s decision on H.B. 176 and H.B. 530, pursuing a version of the controversial and rejected Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory in her argument that the state supreme court interfered with the legislature’s authority.
ISL is a radical legal theory stemming from a right-wing interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause. The theory contends that state legislatures — and only state legislatures — can regulate federal elections. In effect, this suggests courts, governors, citizen-led initiatives, and state constitutions have no authority to check the legislature’s power over election rules and congressional redistricting.
In the landmark 2023 Moore v. Harper decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the theory. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion declared that the “Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections…[and] does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
In her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Jacobsen asked the court to create a test to determine when a state court’s decision exceeds its ordinary judicial review duties and crosses the line to intrude on a state legislatures’ role in setting election rules.
The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to dive back into ISL with today’s declination. The Court’s decision ensures all four voter suppression laws will remain permanently blocked.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the next few weeks whether it will hear three other voting rights cases this term.