Municipal Election Problems Raise Voter Suppression Concerns (received 11/7/23)

GREAT FALLS: Election day in Great Falls was plagued with widespread confusion, resulting in numerous voters being turned away at the Expo Park. Sandra Merchant failed to make any effort to inform local media and the general public that voting would only take place at the Courthouse Annex building. For over a decade, election day voting has taken place at the Expo Park. Merchant rented the Expo Park but inexplicably chose to use the location for vote counting only. Volunteers with the Election Protection Committee spent the day monitoring issues at both locations. Volunteers note that by 4:30pm at least eighty-five (85) voters had been turned away from voting at the Expo Park and told to go to the Annex. Individuals brought 175 ballots to Expo Park and were told they had to deposit them at the Annex. Voters at the Annex reported issues such as not receiving their ballots, and long lines to also prompted some voters to leave without having cast their ballot. 

The Election Protection Committee has received many emails from voters with complaints about the municipal election including the ones seen today. Numerous errors have been reported. Merchant’s explanation for these errors and her claim that these issues are resolved is disputable.  Reports suggest voters are being disenfranchised, a subtle form of voter suppression.  

Complaints run the gamut. Some voters did not receive a ballot in the mail. Some voters received multiple ballots and the explanation from the election office of a “printer jam” cannot be blamed.  As Jane Weber, spokesperson for the Election Protection Committee explained, “ a printer jam cannot generate two ballots having different bar codes and different voter identification numbers for the same voter. That is caused by human error in the election office, likely double entries created in the voter database.”  More concerning is that both of those ballots could be voted, and the vote tabulator would never detect the error.  Weber further explained, “for those who think a hand-count would catch these double ballots, think again, the human eye would never distinguish these subtle differences in the numbers and codes during the signature verification process.” 

One household reported they did not receive their ballots. When they visited the election office, they were informed they did not live within the city limits. The voter submitted this email message to the Election Protection Committee, “I am at the election office now and am being told I am designated rural and thus do not qualify for a ballot. In fact, I do reside in the city. I had to insist this issue be escalated to double or triple check. I was just told by one of the county employees here that Sandra Merchant doubled checked this and confirmed my residence is in the city. I’m still in the election office waiting to hear what is next. I feel there are likely many voters being disenfranchised due to errors this election.” 

One household reported receiving three ballots for a deceased family member. That might be understandable if one ballot had been sent and if the deceased had recently passed.  Weber said, “in this disturbing situation, the individual died the last week of December 2022, and their name should have been removed from the voter database by the current election office administration who assumed their duties just a week later in January 2023.”

One voter who did not receive a ballot visited the election office to determine the problem. The voter was told their ballot was undeliverable. The voter questioned the undeliverable status since ballots had successfully been delivered to the address for decades. When the ballot was retrieved by the election office staff, the street address on the mailing packet had been smeared and was unreadable, clearly a printing issue. The post office returned the ballot to the election office, and no further action was taken by the election staff. BUT, the voter’s name was clearly printed and could easily have been looked up in the voter database. The address label could have been corrected and remailed. INSTEAD, the ballot never arrived and the voter was never notified. Had the voter not taken the initiative to track down their ballot, or if the voter had not been able to take time away from work to visit the election office, the voter would likely not have voted in this election.

The complaints received by the EPC indicate mistakes continue to occur in the election office. The EPC will continue to monitor election errors and reminds voters to contact electionprotection406@gmail.com to report ballot issues or concerns.

Weber said, “We will continue to hold Sandra Merchant accountable until safe and secure elections are restored in Cascade County.” 

Summary of Election Errors in 2023 

• Duplicate ballots continue to be sent to voters. Some are true duplicates and the voter identification number/code on the recipient’s affirmation number is identical on both ballot mailings. The vote tabulator machine would detect and reject a second voted ballot in this situation. Ms. Merchant blames this error (duplicate ballots) on a jam from the printer. 

• Other duplicate ballots packages have different voter identification numbers/codes. Those receiving two ballot packages with different voter identification numbers/codes on the affirmation envelopes could vote twice and voting twice would not be detected by the vote tabulator machine nor during voter signature verification. Contrary to what Ms. Merchant purports as the cause of duplicate ballots (printer jam), these duplicate ballots were NOT caused by a printer error. Instead, the election office staff has entered voters into the ElectMT database twice, allowing two different affirmation envelopes and ballots to be sent to the same person. This is clearly an error under Ms. Merchant’s watch. Those who report this situation never received two ballots from the previous Clerk and Recorder administration. 

• County voters living outside the city of Great Falls erroneously received ballots for the municipal election. The EPC is aware of one voter who contacted the election office and informed them that his household should not have received ballots. When the election office staff insisted his was an eligible voting address, the ballots were voted despite the voter’s knowledge that his home was built outside the city limits.  

• Voters reported never receiving ballots when they have received them routinely in the past. 

• One voter reported their household did not receive their ballots. When they visited the election office, they were informed they did not live within the city limits. The voter does reside in the city and insisted the staff re-checked their voter database. The voter’s residence was confirmed as being within the city. The voter expressed concern that more voters might be disenfranchised due to election errors.  

• One voter who did not receive a ballot went to the election office last week to inquire about her ballot. She was told her ballot was undeliverable. The voter informed the election staff that she’d been receiving ballots at her home for 23 years. When the election staff researched the situation, it was found that the street address on her affirmation ballot (showing through the cellophane window) was blurred beyond reading. The mail person could not deliver the ballot so it was considered “undeliverable.” The voter’s name was clearly on the ballot and the election office could have looked up the voter in ElectMT and contacted them or resent the ballot with a new label affixed. Instead, the voter had to take the initiative to visit the election office to find out the problem. The voter was angry – had she been disabled, a mother with young children, a person working two jobs – she might not have taken the time to visit the election office to reconcile the situation. From EPC’s standpoint, this is a subtle form of voter suppression. How many other voters did not receive ballots and are unfamiliar with contacting the election office for a replacement ballot or ballot to be issued. 

• Precinct numbers on ballots and affirmation envelopes did not match and the EPC questions whether votes can be accurately tallied by precinct split. 

• Most voters were unaware of the test for the vote tabulator machine, as it was only published on the election office website and a voter would have had to continually check the website to learn of the date. Consequently, few voters observed the test. 

• The EPC is concerned that the location for voter assistance on Election Day has changed from previous years. The election office has told numerous voters that all ballots (replaced damaged ballots, ballots never received, same-day registration and ballot issuance) will occur only from the Courthouse Annex. In the previous hybrid elections (GF Public School Trustee election and Library Levy), voters could receive and vote their ballots at Expo Park. For the past decade, all election operations were moved to Expo Park, so this change will likely be confusing to voters. 

• The sample ballot (see page 5) published in the Great Falls Tribune incorrectly illustrated the face of the municipal ballot. The errors were numerous – a rural judge listed amongst the GF municipal judge race, Neighborhood Council races not listed in chronological order, candidate names listed without any attribution to their proper Neighborhood Council, the safety levy and safety bond issues split between the GF municipal election candidates and the RURAL municipal election candidates, and no oval shown for the safety levy issue. Although a “corrected” sample ballot was printed days later, the rural judge was still listed amongst the GF municipal judge candidates and the safety levy and safety bond issues were listed AFTER the rural municipal candidate which was confusing for the reader. 

• Election Day was a fiasco with voters confused about changes made to the process that were not clearly communicated through the media. Ms. Merchant has a problem with communication, something the GFPS board and administration had complained about back in May 2023. The situation has not improved. Voters were accustomed to coming to Exhibition Hall at Expo Park to obtain ballots that had not been received, damaged ballots, lost ballots or simply to same-day register and vote a ballot. Merchant changed the game plan used for several decades and instead the Exhibition Hall was exclusively used as a vote tabulation/count space. Voters who entered the building expecting to obtain a ballot were sent to the Election 

Office in the Courthouse Annex. Likewise, no voted ballots could be deposited at Exhibition Hall – all voters were redirected to take their ballots to the Courthouse Annex. EPC monitors stationed at Exhibition Hall all date noted the following: 

- 108 voters attempting to obtain a ballot and vote were instructed to go to the Courthouse Annex 

- Voters attempted to deposit 180 BALLOTS at Exhibition Hall but found no ballot box. They were told to take them to the Courthouse Annex to deposit them in the ballot box there. 

- At 4:30 pm, the Election Office staff finally placed a ballot drop box at Exhibition Hall and another 127 ballots were brought to the building and finally allowed to be deposited without being re-directed to the Courthouse Annex. Was it fair to change the process midway through Election Day? 

• Clearly, voters were confused and had expectations that could not be met. Voters wasted time driving from one location to another to vote or deposit their voted ballots. Who knows how many voters ran out of time, could not drive to the Annex, and simply did not vote. 

- Parking at the Courthouse Annex was chaotic with limited spaces and voters jockeying to find a parking space 

- Voter lines at times were long at the Courthouse Annex and caused some voters to give up when they could not wait any longer 

• A judge acknowledged numerous errors with the May 2023 School Board Trustee election and assigned a monitor to observe the election office operations relating to the library levy election. This determination underscores the court’s concerns about election integrity in Cascade County.  

• A May 12, 2023 legal ad in the Great Falls Tribune incorrectly notified the public that the Library levy election was to be on May 2, 2023 (the date of the previous month’s school board trustee election). Also, the ad stated that ballots would be mailed between May 17-May 22, 2023, but the ballot mailing deadline was May 17. No correction to this ad was ever published in the Great Falls Tribune. 

• The election office did not coordinate review of the ballot face with the library board prior to it going to print. The ballot was incorrect, in that it included a write-in candidate line when this was a simple YES/NO issue on a levy. Thankfully, the library board insisted on reviewing the ballot, discovered the error and had it corrected prior to the ballot going to print. 

• Conversely, the library board asked multiple times to review the instructions sheet insert. Despite the library board’s request to review the instruction sheet in advance, they were not provided with that opportunity until after the instructions had been printed. The instruction sheet for the library election was printed three timesbecause errors were repeated, errors that could have been prevented had an advanced draft been reviewed by the library board. This additional printing (approximately 90,000 sheets printed instead of 30,000 sheets) was a waste of resources and county staff time. 

• Voters continued to receive multiple ballots. One voter notified the EPC that he received six ballot packets and none resided at his address. Ironically, the actual resident at that address did not receive his absentee ballot and had to visit the election office to obtain a ballot. 

• One voter household of four eligible voters reported to the EPC having only received three absentee voter envelopes. Two voter packets were fine. The third envelope was addressed to one voting-age child; however that envelope contained two affirmation envelopes (one which was for the mother in the household) and only one ballot. Since only one ballot had been inside her son’s packet, the two voters did not know which person should vote the enclosed ballot. They both had to visit the Election office to report the problem and obtain proper ballots. 

• Two other voters reported not receiving their absentee ballots. When one spouse visited the election office, she was told the couple likely had not voted in previous elections and were no longer active voters. The voter explained that she and her husband had voted in the previous month’s May school election and those absentee ballots had been sent to their home address. The voter was not only offended by the assumption that she and her husband were not actively voting but also that the school absentee ballots arrived in May, but the library levy election ballots did not arrive for the June election. The Election office staff would not issue the spouse both ballots, so the husband had to visit the Election office separately to receive his ballot. 

• Other voters reported to EPC that they received two ballots in the same voter packet. 

• Another household reported not receiving their absentee ballots – these were long-time absentee voters. Both voters were required to visit the election office in order to receive a 

ballot.

• The balance of election judges were predominantly election deniers who signed the 2022 petition mentioned earlier. The judges for the Library Levy election who had signed the petition included: Leighton Dresch, Lew Zanto, Julie Bass, Ron Staley, Rodney Meyers, Steve Vinnedge, Keith Duncan, Beth McDonough, Carol Fisher, Daniel Nelson, Dena Johnson, and David Price. Additionally, the following Count Board/Resolution Committee members also signed the 2022 petition: Jan Wenaas, Carol Robinson, and Beth Cooper. Why are the majority of the judges part of the election denier faction? 

• Ms. Merchant met with nationally-known election denier Douglas Frank in her office on August 29, 2023, the day he lectured at MSU-GF about his theory that the 2020 election was stolen. She then attended the evening lecture where Mr. Frank addressed her publicly and by first name during his lecture. Frank suggested Merchant agrees with his theories. Ms. Merchant never disagreed with Mr. Frank when he asserted that she believed his theories. Her public alignment with this fraudulent rhetoric is unacceptable. As an election official, Ms. Merchant should NOT be engaging with an individual who espouses false theories about election fraud that never happened and have been nationally disproven. Further, to publicly align with his false assessments proves her unsuitability to conduct Cascade County’s elections. 

• Election Office employees have signed the 2022 petition demanding the elimination of mail ballots, use of the vote tabulator machine, and requiring poll voting on election day only and that all county voters re-register to vote. Those employees are Beatrice Devereaux Biddick, Svetlana Pinnoci, and Jeremiah Scott. Clearly, the employees in the election office do not believe in the Montana laws which they are responsible to administer. 

• Ballot stuffing was accomplished by a group of volunteers without process controls to prevent stuffing errors. Most of the volunteers also signed the 2022 petition referred to above: Lewis Zanto, Ron Stahly, Darlene Meddock, Julie Bass, Kathy Workman, Kathryn Hansen, Dena 

Johnson, Noelle Johnson, Carol Robinson, Leighton Dresch, Sharon Thompson, Beth Cooper, Jan Wenaas, Mary Dietz. Many of these same individuals also serve as election judges during poll elections. 

• Ballot instructions for write-in candidates were contradictory. The instructions provided with absentee ballots said, “to write in a candidate’s name, completely fill in the oval next to the line and print the name in the blank space.” There were no blank lines with ovals on the ballot. When voters inquired about how to write in a candidate, they were told to simply strike through a candidate’s name, inscribe their write-in candidate’s name and fill in the oval assigned to the original candidate. When has this ever been the process, since the vote tabulator only recognizes ovals and would count the vote for the original candidate listed? 

• Misfolded ballots caused voter concerns. Some voters cut their ballots to fit them into their secrecy envelopes. Others taped their envelopes or refolded them to fit. Despite what has been said by the election office officials, the refolding caused problems with the vote tabulator machine and ballots were inserted into the machine in groupings of 25-50 ballots rather than a stack of hundreds. This delayed the count results by nearly 24 hours. 

Duplicate ballots were received by many voters. Sometimes the ballots were in separate envelopes and other times two ballots were inserted into one mailing envelope. The Election Protection Committee (EPC) was unaware that those voters who received two mailed envelopes should have been checked to determine whether the voter had received ballots with identical