Montana Green Party v. Christi Jacobsen, 17 F.4th 919

Plaintiffs: Montana Green Party and eight registered Montana voters sued the Montana Secretary of State challenging parts of Montana’s primary ballot-access scheme (signature total, geographic distribution tied to 5% of votes for the prior gubernatorial winner, and filing deadlines).
In 2018 the Green Party submitted ~10,160 petition signatures (majority collected by a private firm, AMT); county verification initially certified the Party but the Montana Supreme Court invalidated 87 signatures from eight house districts, leaving the Party short by 13 signatures and resulting in decertification.
Montana law (as applied in 2018) required statewide signatures equal to the lesser of 5,000 or 5% of votes for the last successful governor, plus signatures from at least 34 of 100 state house districts equal to the lesser of 150 or 5% of that district’s votes for the prior gubernatorial winner.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary on First Amendment and Equal Protection claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed as to First Amendment association/effective-vote claims but reversed as to Equal Protection (one-person, one-vote) for the 5%-per-district formula.
The court found the 2021 statutory amendments did not moot the appeal and remanded, leaving unresolved whether the invalid 5% distribution provision is severable from the rest of Montana’s scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of appeal after 2021 statutory amendments	Amendments do not cure the core injury; appeal remains live	Amendments change challenged provisions and may moot the case	Not moot — amendments did not fundamentally change the challenged analysis
First Amendment: association / effective-vote burden	Scheme (signature total, distribution, deadline) imposes severe burdens on associational and voting rights	Burdens are minimal/reasonable and justified by regulatory interests	Affirmed for Secretary — plaintiffs failed to show a severe burden; State’s interests suffice under Burdick balancing
Equal Protection: distribution formula tied to 5% of votes for prior governor	Indexing per-district thresholds to gubernatorial winner’s votes creates unequal weighting of signatures across equal-population districts, violating one-person, one-vote	Formula is a permissible measure of potential signers and similar to other upheld distribution rules	Reversed for plaintiffs — 5%-per-district provision fails strict scrutiny and violates equal protection
Article III standing to challenge 5% provision	Green Party and individual voters have standing to challenge unequal distribution	Green Party lacks standing to challenge the 5% alternative; at least one individual plaintiff does	Green Party lacks Article III standing for the Equal Protection claim; at least one individual plaintiff (Breck) does have standing

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for balancing burdens on ballot access against state interests)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test; severe burdens require strict scrutiny)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (upholding modest petition thresholds; no "suffocating restrictions")
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (one-person, one-vote applies to nominating petition schemes)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one-person, one-vote principle)
Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa, 342 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (struck down county-based unequal signature distribution)
ACLU of Nevada v. Lomax, 471 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2006) (applied strict scrutiny to geographically unequal petition rules)
Angle v. Miller, 673 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (upheld distribution tied to equally populated congressional districts)
Ariz. Libertarian Party v. Reagan, 798 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2015) (ballot-access scheme analyzed as whole under Burdick)
Ariz. Green Party v. Reagan, 838 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2016) (evidence requirements for showing severe burden on petitioning)