Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 13. ELECTIONS · CHAPTER 27. STATEWIDE BALLOT ISSUES · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 13-27-103 (2026)

Sufficiency Of Signature -- Electronic Signatures Prohibited

✓ 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 27
  4. Part 1
  5. 13-27-103 Sufficiency of signature -- electronic signatures prohibited

TITLE 13. ELECTIONS

CHAPTER 27. STATEWIDE BALLOT ISSUES

Part 1. General Provisions

Sufficiency Of Signature -- Electronic Signatures Prohibited

13-27-103. Sufficiency of signature -- electronic signatures prohibited. (1) A signature for a petition may not be counted unless it is the original signature of the elector in ink, and the elector has signed in substantially the same manner as on the voter registration form. If the elector is registered with a first and middle name, the use of an initial instead of either the first or middle name, but not both names, need not disqualify the signature. The signature may be counted so long as the signature, taken as a whole, bears sufficient similarity to the signature on the registration form as to provide reasonable certainty of its authenticity.

(2) Electronic, digital, or facsimile signatures, including electronic signatures pursuant to Title 30, chapter 18, part 1, are prohibited.

History: En. 37-116 by Sec. 2, Ch. 342, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 37-116(part); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 494, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 368, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 23, Ch. 647, L. 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: Larson v. State, 2019 MT 28, 434 P.3d 241.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larson v. State, 2019 MT 28, 434 P.3d 241. · cites it 7× “Sections 13-27-103 and -303(1), MCA, 8 as indirectly incorporated into *254 § 13-10-601(2)(c), MCA, through express incorporation of § 13-27-303(1), MCA, to which § 13-27-103, MCA, applies. "If any of the randomly selected signatures do not appear to be genuine," the county…”
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Murray, 600 P.2d 1174 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 6× “Lynn Miller appeals from an order of the Lewis and Clark County District Court, denying a request for a declaratory judgment interpreting section 13-27-103, MCA, and instructing the *501 respondents to certify and accept certain signatures which appear on petitions supporting…”
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.