Twin Constitutional Initiatives Aim to Make Montana Elections More Competitive

Part of a national debate over outside money and political extremism, CI-126 and CI-127 ask voters to make deep changes to primary and general elections

By Alex Sakariassen for Montana Free Press

In addition to a slate of federal and statewide races, Montana voters next month will be asked to weigh in on a pair of proposed amendments to the state Constitution rewriting the very process by which they choose their elected officials.

Taken together, Constitutional Initiatives 126 and 127 would amend the Montana Constitution to alter the face of even-year elections from start to finish. CI-126 would jettison the state’s separate party June primaries in favor of a single multi-party primary ballot that would advance up to four candidates to November general elections, while CI-127 would require a majority vote of more than 50% to give a candidate a general election victory. The state Legislature would be responsible for adopting rules on how to handle a no-majority situation.

The proposals, which would only apply to statewide, legislative and congressional races and not those for local or regional offices such as the Public Service Commission, come amid a rise in similar state-level efforts across the country, their backers billing electoral reform as the most promising antidote to political division and entrenched party representation.

Credit: Illustration by Margo Stoney, High Mountain Creative

Backers of the Montana initiatives argue that they’d together reduce the influence extreme partisanship and special interests have over the state’s politics by boosting competition in November general elections, resulting in more effective public policy. Opponents say they’re skeptical that the changes would work as intended. 

“I usually tell people, if you think we’re hitting home runs and everything, this is a well oiled machine, this might not be for you,” Montanans for Election Reform board member Frank Garner told Montana Free Press in an interview. “But the majority of people that I talk to, that the people in our coalition talk to, are desperately concerned about the state of our government and its ability to serve us. It is not about the people, because we’ve had good people serve. It is about the system we use and the behaviors it reinforces.”

Initiative backers including Garner, a former Republican state lawmaker from Kalispell who was part of the comparatively moderate GOP “Solutions Caucus,” argue that Montana’s November general elections in Republican- and Democrat-dominated districts are too often in effect decided months earlier, in June party primaries. They contend this atmosphere gives outsized influence to deep-pocketed donors, special interest groups and the small but fiercely partisan voter blocks with which those interests align. The initiative backers say their goal is a system where elections do a better job of ensuring candidates are consistently held accountable to a broader swath of voters. 

Backers say they’ve found support from Democrats and Republicans as well as the Montana Alliance for Retired Americans, Veterans for Montana Voters and the Billings Chamber of Commerce.

“We have a weekly standing gathering of our small businesses, and I’d asked them about this, and eight of those nine [members] said that they don’t want to be constrained to only one party when voting in the primary,” Billings Chamber spokesperson Dan Brooks said on a press call hosted by Montanans for Election Reform last month. “They want to be able to have that independence of choice to help determine who represents them and goes on to the general election.”

Credit: Illustration by Margo Stoney, High Mountain Creative

Opponents of the initiatives have argued instead that CI-126 and CI-127 would do the opposite, playing into the hands of the entrenched, moneyed interests backers claim to combat. Senator Greg Hertz, a Republican from Polson appointed by GOP state senate leaders to the committee tasked with formally rebutting the measures, told MTFP he believes placing all candidates on a single primary ballot regardless of party will give those with greater funding and name recognition a considerable advantage. The result, he argued, will incentivize rather than discourage rampant spending in Montana elections.

“If you have somebody who has money and you’re up against five or six or seven or 10 candidates in a legislative race … you’re going to see a lot more mailers, advertisements, social media posts,” Hertz said. “It’ll just expand everything that is being used right now. We’ll just have more candidates, more messaging, more confusion for voters.”

Hertz also argued that by leaving it to the Legislature to develop a tie-breaking system, CI-127 opens the door to protracted and costly run-off systems such as ranked choice voting. Initiative backers have said previously that they believe the Legislature could adopt either an Alaska-style ranked-choice voting system or Georgia-style runoff elections.

Opponents of the initiative have also criticized the amount of financial support the backers have received from out-of-state groups. Montanans for Fair Elections treasurer Lukas Schubert joined a coalition of Republican lawmakers this summer in asking a state court to bar Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen from certifying CI-126 and CI-127 for the November ballot. In an interview with MTFP, Schubert argued the outside funding directed toward the initiatives is indicative of a “big money” push to alter Montana’s election system.

“What it benefits is the corporate side of both parties, and I think it disenfranchises the real grassroots side of both parties,” Schubert said, adding “it’s not necessarily a partisan issue.”

According to financial forms filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, Montanans for Election Reform has raised a total of $7.4 million on its campaign. Its receipts include $4.7 million from Article IV, a Lubbock, Texas-based social welfare nonprofit. Politically active social welfare nonprofits are colloquially known as “dark money” groups as they aren’t required to disclose their donors. Article IV’s website attributes the collapse of bipartisan compromise and rise of political extremism in America to flagging competition in the two-party system and advocates for the use of nonpartisan redistricting commissions and top-four primary systems, such as that proposed in CI-126, to combat the issue.

(Another advocacy group that has provided financial backing for Montanans for Election Reform, Action Now, is funded by John and Laura Arnold, who have also donated to Montana Free Press under a separate wing of their philanthropy.)

Garner acknowledged the nonprofit’s contribution to Montana’s effort, but argued there’s nothing nefarious about Article IV’s involvement. The initiatives originated with and have been shepherded by a board of Montanans from all political stripes, he said, adding that the backers are competing for voter attention with a U.S. Senate race that will likely see hundreds of millions of dollars spent on mailers, social media posts and television ads. Garner characterized Article IV as an essential values-aligned partner in leveling that competitive field.

“To be able to talk to Montanans and educate them on these initiatives, it takes work and it takes resources,” Garner said. “While I’m sure there are people in the opposition out there that wish we would have bake sales to support it, we know that this issue is too important for us to come in second on.”

IRS records compiled by ProPublica show Article IV reported nearly $11 million in donations in 2022, half of which went toward grants to other organizations promoting state-level election system changes including Oregon Ranked Choice Voting and the conservative-led Georgia nonprofit Eternal Vigilance Action.

Proposals to change to primary- and general-election structures are generating considerable discussion across the nation. Many Democrats and Republicans have argued for similar reforms as a balm for America’s political woes, including in Idaho and Utah. But an equally mixed bag of voices from both major parties have logged their criticism, with the Republican National Committee adopting a resolution to oppose ranked choice voting and Washington’s Democratic Secretary of State Steve Hobbs expressing similar concerns.

The growing debate has generated some political science research that, while not exhaustive, appears to skew in the reformers’ direction. In a 2020 paper, political scientist Christian Grose at the University of Southern California examined the effects of systems that advance the top two primary vote-getters regardless of party affiliation on the ideological extremity of congressional lawmakers. Grose studied election results and voting records from the three states to have used such a system — Washington, California and Louisiana — and found a strong correlation to the election of more ideologically moderate legislators, particularly those newly elected to Congress. 

His conclusion attributed the results to many of the potential consequences opponents in Montana and elsewhere have cited, including the possibility of general elections that feature only two Republican or two Democratic candidates. However, Grose did note open primary systems that allow voters to cast a ballot for any party, like Montana’s current approach, create a similar moderating effect on candidates.