Irrigation election problems considered
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Before the ballots were counted, several issues occurred in the Flathead Joint Board of Control election including rule changes, ballots being held, and a majority vote to cancel the election.
The FJBC commissioner candidate election closed on Tuesday, May 3, at 8 p.m. before press time, so election results will be posted on the Valley Journal website.
Elections are governed by laws developed at the state legislative level. Under Montana law, irrigation elections are under the control of the county election administrator with legal advice from the county attorney, so Lake County is responsible for administering the FJBC election.
In 2013, the laws concerning irrigation elections were changed at the legislative level. It took Lake County Election Administrator Kathie Newgard a few years to figure out how to apply the changed laws, which, she said, is why some of the changes are just now being implemented.
Lake County Attorney Steven Eschenbacher said that unfortunately irrigation elections held before the changes were implemented might not be in accordance with the law.
Administrator Newgard said that part of the confusion about administering those laws came as a result of the way election ballots are issued. Landowners within the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project get one vote for every irrigable acre. It’s not as simple as one person getting one vote, she said. And, not all of the land counts: if there is a house on the property, timber or a creek, it doesn’t count as irrigable land, so voters won’t receive ballots for that land.
One of the law changes includes how out-of-state voters are able to vote. Eschenbacher explained that the law says that a Montana elector needs to live in the county where they vote, which is a problem for landowners or land corporation owners living elsewhere that own irrigable land on the project.
The out-of-state voter problem was resolved last year by having those voters designate a proxy in Montana to cast a vote for them. He said that the law is flawed and he wants to work to have it amended.
“We need to get this fixed so that we never have this problem again,” he said.
After looking into the out-of-state voter issue, another problem was discovered. Eschenbacher said that the law requires one person to be designated as an agent to vote for irrigable land deemed a corporation or with several owners.
Owners were to designate one agent to vote by filling out a notarized form and turning it in before they received a ballot. He said that the law helps make it clear who will be casting the votes for the property.
Eschenbacher said that the FJBC was notified on February 29 of this year that they needed to inform voters of the change, which is disputed by FJBC attorneys representing the board.
On April 21, FJBC commissioners voted in a 9-2 vote to cancel the election because of “incurable legal violations” committed by the county, including not informing voters of the election change in a timely manner.
Election Administrator Newgard said that it is her job to run the election by doing things like preparing, mailing, and collecting ballots. She said it was up to the FJBC to notify the public of election changes. She added that the FJBC was notified with plenty of time to inform voters.
Newgard said that the FJBC didn’t have the authority to cancel an election, although FJBC attorneys state in the letter that the governing body has the authority to cancel an election.
The election administrator is allowed to cancel an election, she said, but that there wasn’t a legal reason to cancel it.
In total, 2,392 election ballots were sent out to individuals and those with finished notarized paperwork requiring one voter to be assigned for land with multiple owners. Of those that didn’t get the paperwork finished, 754 ballots were held.
“They could get the paper notarized and receive a ballot on election day up to 8 p.m.,” Newgard said.
FJBC attorneys said in the letter to the county that by intentionally withholding nearly 800 ballots, the county was in violation of Montana law that says that all of the ballots need to be sent out at the same time.
County Attorney Eschenbacher said that it would be illegal to mail out those ballots for land with multiple owners or corporations without having a single designated agent.
In the letter, FJBC attorneys eluded to the fact that the county knew about the new requirements in the law since 2013 and it took several years to act on the changes. Election Administrator Newgard said that it took several years to interpret the law.
Newgard added that irrigation elections usually occur without any problems, but because this election is during a time when the CSKT-Montana Water Compact is an issue, people are more concerned about the outcome.
County attorney Eschenbacher said that the election could put more people on the board that were for the compact or continue to have a board with a majority that is against the compact.
“It’s not my concern who wins,” he said. “I simply want to administer the election legally.”
In the FJBC letter, it states that if the county moves forward with the irrigation district election, the board will not honor the election results in an effort to protect the voting rights of its constituents. It also states that those on the board will remain on the board until a valid election may be held.
Eschenbacher said that if the board prevents the newly elected commissioners from taking their seats, the FJBC can be sued in court.
