Montana Judge Rules Birthdate Requirement on Absentee Ballots Unconstitutional
In Billings, Montana, a judge has ruled that the requirement to include birthdates on absentee ballot envelopes is unconstitutional. This decision follows concerns that the mandate led to thousands of rejected ballots statewide.
Billings, MT, October 7, 2026 — A judge in Billings, Montana, has declared the state’s requirement for voters to include their birthdates on absentee ballot envelopes to be unconstitutional. The ruling addresses a mandate that had raised concerns regarding a significant number of ballot rejections across Montana.
The decision stems from a legal challenge questioning the constitutionality of requiring specific personal information, such as a birthdate, on the outer envelope of absentee ballots. Prior to this ruling, voters were obligated to provide this detail for their ballot to be considered valid.
Reports indicate that this mandate had contributed to thousands of absentee ballots being rejected statewide. The exact number of rejected ballots and the specific individuals or groups who brought the legal challenge were not detailed in the information available.
The judge’s ruling found the requirement to be unconstitutional, suggesting it presented an undue burden or violated established rights concerning voter participation. The precise legal reasoning behind the unconstitutionality finding has not been fully elaborated upon in the summary.
This legal outcome follows growing concerns among voters and election integrity advocates about the impact of such requirements on the accessibility of absentee voting. The potential for a large volume of rejected ballots due to a technicality like a missing or improperly formatted birthdate raises questions about the fairness and efficacy of the voting process.
The implications of this ruling for future elections in Montana are significant. It is expected to prompt a review of current ballot procedures and potentially lead to changes in how absentee ballots are handled. However, the specific next steps, such as whether the ruling will be appealed or what immediate changes will be implemented, were not specified. The contractor responsible for implementing or enforcing this requirement was not identified.
Story summarized from the original created by Vanessa Willardson on www.ktvq.com, see more information here.
Media gallery
