Montana CI-127, Majority Vote Required to Win Elections Initiative (2024)
| Montana Majority Vote Required to Win Elections Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Elections and campaigns and Electoral systems | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
Montana CI-127, the Majority Vote Required to Win Elections Initiative, was on the ballot in Montana as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported requiring that candidates for the following offices must receive a majority of votes (instead of just a plurality) to win the election, as specified by law: governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, state legislature, and Congress. |
A "no" vote opposed requiring candidates to win a majority of the vote to win the election, thereby maintaining current law where a candidate must receive a plurality of the vote. |
Election results
See also: Results for ranked-choice voting (RCV) and electoral system ballot measures, 2024
|
Montana CI-127 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 228,908 | 39.62% | ||
|
|
348,805 | 60.38% | ||
Overview
What would CI-127 have changed about elections in Montana?
- See also: Text of measure
The initiative would have required that a candidate for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, state legislature, and congressional offices win a majority of the vote (rather than a plurality) to win the election, as provided by law. The state legislature would have needed to pass a law providing for an electoral system with majority vote winners. Examples of majority-vote systems include runoff elections and ranked-choice voting.[1]
As of 2024, state offices in Montana were elected in a plurality system, where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the candidate did not receive a majority of the vote.
Do other states have majority voting systems?
- See also: Background
A majority voting system is an electoral system in which the winner of an election is the candidate that received more than half of the votes cast. In the event that no candidate wins an outright majority, a runoff election is held between the top two vote-getters. For this reason, majority systems are sometimes referred to as two-round systems.[2][3]
Three states—Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana—require runoff elections in a general election when no candidate receives a majority of the vote.[4]
Montanans for Election Reform collected signatures for two election-related ballot initiatives. Along with CI-127, CI-126 was also on the ballot. The initiative was designed to establish top-four open primaries for elections for governor, lieutenant governor, state executives, state legislators, and congressional offices, in which all candidates would run in one primary and the top-four vote-getters would advance to the general election regardless of party.
Montanans for Election Reform raised $4.2 million from groups including Article IV, which describes its mission as “improving the health of American democracy by instituting reforms that align citizens’ interests with politicians’ incentives,” and Unite America, which supports “nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government.”
What did supporters and opponents say about the measure?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Former Republican State Rep. Frank Garner was one of the initiatives’ primary sponsors. Garner said, “We know Montanans are fed up with divisive politics, inflammatory rhetoric and an unwillingness to work across the aisle to find solutions to the real challenges facing Montana’s families. It’s time for a change.”[5]
Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) opposed the initiatives. She said, “I have serious concerns with the efforts funded with dark money to impose Ranked Choice Voting. It is a very deceptive practice and would undermine all of our efforts to secure our elections in Montana. It would also create serious voter confusion and frustration.”[5]
2024 ballot measure trend
- See also: State ballot measure trends, 2024
Montana CI-127 was part of a state ballot measure trend related to electoral systems in 2024.
The ballot initiative has played a prominent role in proposing changes to state and local electoral systems across the United States. In 2024, voters decided on a record number of statewide ballot measures on ranked-choice voting (RCV), all of which were rejected. In Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, voters rejected measures to adopt RCV. In Alaska, voters decided on an initiative to repeal RCV, which was adopted in 2020. Voters in Washington, D.C., approved a ranked-choice voting initiative. In Missouri, voters approved a constitutional amendment that would preempt RCV.
There were other electoral system changes on the ballot, some of which could have led to the adoption of RCV. In Arizona, Proposition 140 would have replaced partisan primaries with primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries. Arizona Proposition 133, on the other hand, would have prohibited systems like top-two and top-four primaries, meaning Proposition 133 and Proposition 140 were competing measures. Both were rejected. In Montana, voters rejected two electoral system measures, one to adopt top-four primaries and another to require a majoritarian vote system for general elections, such as run-off elections or RCV.
In South Dakota, voters defeated Amendment H, which would have replaced partisan primaries with top-two primaries.
| State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Ballot Measure 2 | Repeal the top-four ranked-choice voting (RCV) system that was adopted in 2020 |
|
160,230 (50%) |
160,973 (50%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 133 | Require partisan primary elections for partisan offices and prohibit primary elections where all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, run in the same primary election, such as top-two, top-four, and top-five primaries |
|
1,286,640 (42%) |
1,763,711 (58%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 140 | Require primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, and require general election candidates to receive a majority of votes |
|
1,284,176 (41%) |
1,823,445 (59%) |
|
| CO | Proposition 131 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Colorado |
|
1,385,060 (46%) |
1,595,256 (54%) |
|
| DC | Initiative 83 | Establish ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C. |
|
212,332 (73%) |
78,961 (27%) |
|
| ID | Proposition 1 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal, state, and certain local offices in Idaho |
|
269,960 (30%) |
618,753 (70%) |
|
| MT | CI-126 | Establish top-four primaries for federal and state offices in Montana |
|
287,837 (49%) |
300,664 (51%) |
|
| MT | CI-127 | Require an electoral system in which candidates for certain offices must win a majority of the vote, rather than a plurality, to win the election |
|
228,908 (40%) |
348,805 (60%) |
|
| NV | Question 3 | Establish top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Nevada |
|
664,011 (47%) |
747,719 (53%) |
|
| OR | Measure 117 | Establish ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Oregon |
|
893,668 (42%) |
1,219,013 (58%) |
|
| SD | Constitutional Amendment H | Establish top-two primaries for federal, state, and certain local offices in South Dakota |
|
141,570 (34%) |
270,048 (66%) |
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for the initiative was as follows:
| “ | CI-127 amends the Montana Constitution to provide that elections for certain offices must be decided by majority vote as determined as provided by law rather than by a plurality or the largest amount of the votes. If it cannot be determined who received a majority of votes because two or more candidates are tied, then the winner of the election will be determined as provided by law. CI-127 applies to elections for governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, state representative, state senator, United States representative, United States Senator, and other offices as provided by law.
[] YES on Constitutional Amendment CI-127 [] NO on Constitutional Amendment CI-127 [6] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article IV, Montana Constitution
The measure would have amended Section 5 of Article IV of the Montana Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been deleted and underlined text would have been added.The following underlined text would be added.[1]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Section 5. Result of elections. (1) As used in this section, the term “covered office” means the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, state representative, state senator, United States representative, United States senator, and other offices as provided by law.
(2) In all elections held by the people for an office other than a covered office, the person or persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be declared elected.
(3) In all elections held by the people for a covered office, the person receiving a majority of votes as determined as provided by law shall be declared elected. If it cannot be determined which person received a majority of votes because two or more persons are tied, the elected person shall be determined as provided by law.
[6]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The initiative proponents wrote the ballot language for this measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 16, and the FRE is 22. The word count for the ballot title is 113.
Support
Montanans for Election Reform led the campaign in support of CI-126 and CI-127.[7]
Supporters
Organizations
- Action Now Inc
- Article IV
- RepresentWomen
- Sixteen Thirty Fund
- United America PAC
Arguments
Opposition
Montanans for Fair Elections registered to oppose CI-126 and CI-127.[8]
Opponents
Political Parties
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
Montanans for Election Reform was the ballot measure committee leading the campaign in support of the top-four primary initiative (CI-126) and the majority vote requirement to win elections initiative (CI-127). The committee reported $23.1 million in contributions.[9]
Montanans for Fair Elections registered to oppose CI-126 and CI-127. The committee reported $36,595 in contributions.[10]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $23,107,834.97 | $1,554.62 | $23,109,389.59 | $22,997,747.64 | $22,999,302.26 |
| Oppose | $36,595.01 | $0.00 | $36,595.01 | $39,554.95 | $39,554.95 |
| Total | $23,144,429.98 | $1,554.62 | $23,145,984.60 | $23,037,302.59 | $23,038,857.21 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.[11]
| Committees in support of CI-127 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Montanans for Election Reform | $23,107,834.97 | $1,554.62 | $23,109,389.59 | $22,997,747.64 | $22,999,302.26 |
| Total | $23,107,834.97 | $1,554.62 | $23,109,389.59 | $22,997,747.64 | $22,999,302.26 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the support committee.[9]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article IV | $18,175,000.00 | $0.00 | $18,175,000.00 |
| Unite America PAC | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,100,000.00 |
| Action Now Inc | $185,000.00 | $0.00 | $185,000.00 |
| Sixteen Thirty Fund | $130,250.00 | $0.00 | $130,250.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative.[11]
| Committees in opposition to CI-127 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Montanans for Fair Elections | $36,595.01 | $0.00 | $36,595.01 | $39,554.95 | $39,554.95 |
| Total | $36,595.01 | $0.00 | $36,595.01 | $39,554.95 | $39,554.95 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the opposition committee.[9]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montana Red | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Randy Brodehl | $8,000.00 | $0.00 | $8,000.00 |
| Ray Thompson | $4,000.00 | $0.00 | $4,000.00 |
| Stanley Pine | $4,000.00 | $0.00 | $4,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
Electoral systems in Montana
State offices in Montana are elected in a single-winner plurality voting method.
Plurality voting system
A plurality voting system is an electoral system in which the winner of an election is the candidate that received the highest number of votes. The candidate need not win an outright majority to be elected. This system is sometimes referred to as first-past-the-post or winner-take-all. This is the most common voting system used in the United States.[3][12]
Majority voting system
A majority voting system is an electoral system in which the winner of an election is the candidate that received more than half of the votes cast. In the event that no candidate wins an outright majority, a runoff election is held between the top two vote-getters. For this reason, majority systems are sometimes referred to as two-round systems.[2][3]
Three states—Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana—require runoff elections in a general election when no candidate receives a majority of the vote. In every other state, a candidate can win a general election with a plurality of the vote.[4]
Ranked-choice voting
- See also: Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
One type of election system that requires candidates to receive a majority of the vote is ranked-choice voting (RCV). A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. The most common type of RCV is instant-runoff voting. In instant-runoff voting, if a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. Ballots that ranked a failed candidate as their first, or highest choice, depending on the round, are then reevaluated and counted as first-preference ballots for the next highest-ranked candidate in that round. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the ballots. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. Elements of this process, such as the number of candidates eliminated in each round, may vary by jurisdiction.
Path to the ballot
The state process
In Montana, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Moreover, signature collection must be distributed such that petitions include signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in each of two-fifths (40) of the state's 100 legislative districts in the last gubernatorial election. Petitioners have a maximum of one year to collect signatures and get them verified by county elections officials.
The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2024 ballot:
- Signatures: 60,359 valid signatures
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures to county clerks was June 21, 2024. The final deadline for county clerks to submit signatures to the secretary of state was July 19, 2024.
County election officials check each signature to make sure the name corresponds to the name of a registered voter. Then they use a 5 percent random sampling method to check the authenticity of the signatures. Signature petitions are then sent to the secretary of state, which certifies the measure for the ballot if enough valid signatures were submitted.
Details about this initiative
- The initiative was filed by Rob Cook, Frank Garner, Bruce Tutvedt, Doug Campbell, Ted Kronebusch, and Bruce Grubb on October 5, 2023.[13]
- The initiative was approved for signature gathering on January 5, 2024.[13]
- Sponsors submitted signatures for the initiative on June 13, 2024.[14]
- The initiative was certified for the ballot on August 22, 2024.[15]
Signature gathering cost
Sponsors of the measure hired Landslide Political to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,027,183.50 was spent to collect the 60,359 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $17.02.
The campaign spent a total of $2,054,367.00 collecting a total of 120,718 required signatures for both CI-126 and CI-127 and it is impossible to discern the specific amount spent on each initiative individually. The total cost divided in two would result in a CPRS estimate for each initiative at $17.02.
Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform signature validity lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters | |
| Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. | Defendant argument: The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted. |
Source: NBC Montana
Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform, sponsors of three ballot initiatives targeting the 2024 ballot (the abortion initiative, top-four primary initiative, and majority vote requirement for elections initiative), filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) in Lewis and Clark County District Court. The campaigns alleged that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.[16]
On July 26, 2024, the Montana First Judicial District Court ruled that voters who are classified as inactive voters are still qualified electors under state law for the pruposes of signing and counting signatures on proposed ballot initiative petitions. The court ordered county elections offices to count the signatures of inactive voters.[17]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Montana
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Montana.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Montana Secretary of State, "Initiative CI-126 full text," accessed December 15, 2023
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Georgetown University, "Electoral Systems," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 FairVote, "Electoral Systems," accessed August 3, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedncsl - ↑ 5.0 5.1 Montana Free Press, "Backers say they have signatures to qualify nonpartisan primary and majority vote initiatives for fall ballot," accessed September 10, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Yes on 126 MT, "Home," accessed October 3, 2024
- ↑ OpenSecrets, "Montanans for Fair Elections," accessed October 2, 2024
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Montana Campaign Electronic Reporting System, "Montanans for Election Reform," accessed July 1, 2024
- ↑ OpenSecrets, "Montanans for Fair Elections," accessed October 2, 2024
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedfinance - ↑ ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network, "Electoral Systems," accessed August 3, 2017
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Montana Secretary of State, "Proposed 2024 ballot issues," accessed January 2, 2024
- ↑ KPAX, "Signatures dropped off in Missoula for two Montana ballot measures," accessed June 13, 2024
- ↑ KXLH, "Montana election reform proposals qualify for November ballot," accessed August 23, 2024
- ↑ NBC Montana, "Montana Secretary of State served lawsuit for illegal removal of voter signatures," accessed July 11, 2024
- ↑ News Times, "Montana judge: Signatures of inactive voters count for initiatives, including 1 to protect abortion," accessed July 16, 2024
- ↑ Montana Code Annotated 2023, "§ 13-1-106. Time of opening and closing of polls for all elections -- exceptions," accessed June 10, 2025
- ↑ Montana law says an individual does not gain residency if they relocate for "temporary work, training, or an educational program, without the intention of making that county or the state the individual's permanent home at the conclusion of the temporary work, training, or educational program." See HB 413 from 2025 for more information.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Montana Secretary of State, “Montana Voter Registration Application,” accessed June 10, 2025
- ↑ Montana Motor Vehicle Division, “Additional Considerations when Getting Your License or ID,” accessed June 10, 2025
- ↑ Montana Legislative Services, "SB 490: Revise election laws regarding late registration," accessed June 9, 2025
- ↑ Montana Legislative Services, "HB 413: Revise election laws regarding residency," accessed June 9, 2025
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ Montana Code Annotated 2023, "§ 13-13-114. Voter Identification And Marking Precinct Register Book Before Elector Votes -- Provisional Voting," accessed June 9, 2025
 |
State of Montana Helena (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
