Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 13. ELECTIONS · CHAPTER 15. CANVASSING, RETURNS, AND CERTIFICATES · Part 2. Vote Count Procedures
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 13-15-202 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 13
  3. CHAPTER 15
  4. Part 2
  5. 13-15-202 Repealed

TITLE 13. ELECTIONS

CHAPTER 15. CANVASSING, RETURNS, AND CERTIFICATES

Part 2. Vote Count Procedures

Repealed

13-15-202. Repealed. Sec. 91, Ch. 414, L. 2003.

History: En. Secs. 134, 173, Ch. 368, L. 1969; R.C.M. 1947, 23-3716(3), 23-4003; amd. Sec. 153, Ch. 571, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 391, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 143, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 129, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 15, L. 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2005 · leading case: Marsh v. Overland, 905 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marsh v. Overland, 905 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 60× “Issue 1 Did the District Court err in concluding that the surname "Marsh" alone on a write-in ballot was insufficient to determine the intent of the voter as required by § 13-15-202, MCA? We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine if they are correct.”
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). · cites it 2× “22(1) (1992); Mont. Code Ann. § 13-15-202 (1997) (not counting votes if "elector's choice cannot be determined"); Nev.”
Big Spring v. Jore, 2005 MT 64 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 6× “Section 13-15-202(3), MCA (Repealed 2003) (emphasis added).”
Rennie v. Nistler, 735 P.2d 1124 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 8× “I conclude that we must consider not only § 13-15-102, MCA, discussed in the majority opinion, but also § 13-15-202(3), MCA, which is the successor to § 777, RCM (1935), upon which the Peterson v.”
Paulsen v. Huestis, 2000 MT 280 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 14× “” Additionally, 22 persons wrote the correct name, but neglected to place an “X” in front of the name as required by § 13-13-117(4), MCA.”
Spaeth v. Kendall, 801 P.2d 591 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 2× “The elector’s choice was clear in that instance, and the District Court properly concluded it should be counted for that race, relying upon § 13-15-202(3), MCA, which states: “A ballot or part of a ballot is void and shall not be counted if the elector’s choice cannot be…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 13-15-202(1)(b) — 1 case
Marsh v. Overland, 905 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1995). “Issue 1 Did the District Court err in concluding that the surname "Marsh" alone on a write-in ballot was insufficient to determine the intent of the voter as required by § 13-15-202, MCA? We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine if they are correct.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 13-15-202(3) — 5 cases
Marsh v. Overland, 905 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1995). “Issue 1 Did the District Court err in concluding that the surname "Marsh" alone on a write-in ballot was insufficient to determine the intent of the voter as required by § 13-15-202, MCA? We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine if they are correct.”
Big Spring v. Jore, 2005 MT 64 (Mont. 2005). “Section 13-15-202(3), MCA (Repealed 2003) (emphasis added).”
Rennie v. Nistler, 735 P.2d 1124 (Mont. 1987). “I conclude that we must consider not only § 13-15-102, MCA, discussed in the majority opinion, but also § 13-15-202(3), MCA, which is the successor to § 777, RCM (1935), upon which the Peterson v.”
Paulsen v. Huestis, 2000 MT 280 (Mont. 2000). “” Additionally, 22 persons wrote the correct name, but neglected to place an “X” in front of the name as required by § 13-13-117(4), MCA.”
Spaeth v. Kendall, 801 P.2d 591 (Mont. 1990). “The elector’s choice was clear in that instance, and the District Court properly concluded it should be counted for that race, relying upon § 13-15-202(3), MCA, which states: “A ballot or part of a ballot is void and shall not be counted if the elector’s choice cannot be…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 13-15-202(l)(b) — 2 cases
Marsh v. Overland, 905 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1995). “Issue 1 Did the District Court err in concluding that the surname "Marsh" alone on a write-in ballot was insufficient to determine the intent of the voter as required by § 13-15-202, MCA? We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine if they are correct.”
Paulsen v. Huestis, 2000 MT 280 (Mont. 2000). “” Additionally, 22 persons wrote the correct name, but neglected to place an “X” in front of the name as required by § 13-13-117(4), MCA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.