HELENA, Mont. -- A new law in Montana, which its backers said was designed to cut down on fraud, could instead make it more difficult for some Montanans to vote.

During the 2021 session, lawmakers passed a measure to prohibit the practice of collecting and delivering voters' sealed absentee ballots for monetary benefit.

Alex Rate, legal director for the ACLU of Montana, said the law's ambiguous language could have a number of effects; for instance, on someone living in a retirement home who has a staff member deliver their ballot to the mail.

"Vulnerable communities, such as seniors or people living in assisted living who need the assistance of others, are going to be particularly impacted by these types of voting restrictions," Rate contended.

A similar Montana law was struck down as unconstitutional in 2020. The new law is part of a wave of other Republican-sponsored bills in Montana and other states that purport to secure elections.

Ballot collection is important in Montana because so much of the state is rural. Rate pointed out having ballots collected is especially helpful for the state's indigenous communities, where post offices and election offices may be far away. He also noted Native Americans have faced racism in the towns bordering reservations.

"You can imagine that it's not on the top of somebody's list to go expose yourself to that type of racism, and discrimination and hostility, in order to cast your ballot," Rate asserted.

Rate emphasized the law could have a chilling effect on voting, because potential voters might assume the law applies to them, when in fact, the restrictions are much narrower than they understand.

"I think that there is a real danger that we're going to see ballots going uncounted as a result of this particular law," Rate remarked.

Rate stressed the ACLU of Montana aims to have an injunction in place by next year to prevent the ballot-collection ban from going into effect before the 2022 elections.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

BALTIMORE, Md. -- Maryland civil rights groups are proposing a lawsuit against Baltimore County if it adopts its current redistricting plan, claiming the map weakens representation for the area's diverse population.

Ryan Coleman, president of the Randallstown chapter of the NAACP, which would join with the ACLU of Maryland in suing the county, said the African American population in the area has soared to about 30% over the past 10 years and in some districts to 50%.

Yet the potential map packs the Black vote into just one district, maintaining a white majority in the other six districts, which the U.S. Supreme Court has counseled against in the Voting Rights Act.

"The map that they have drawn will dilute the African American voting power," Coleman contended. "And you can't tell me that with 300,000 African Americans in an 800,000-person county that we should only get one African American on the council."

The council will hold a public meeting on Dec. 14 for input on the plan. Then it will have a final approval vote on Dec. 20. If it decides to keep the current map, Coleman said his group and the ACLU will take legal action.

Parts of African American communities in the county are suffering from food deserts, crime and low-performing schools.

Deborah Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland, said those neighborhoods need representatives who care to bring needed change.

"We want the government to look like the county and not to maintain this system where the government, those at the top are all white, and the population is very diverse," Jeon asserted. "We're trying to promote representative democracy, and we think that benefits all of Baltimore County. "

Baltimore County was 60% white, about 30% Black and 6% Hispanic in the 2020 Census. In 2010, the area was 64% white, 26% Black and about 4% Hispanic.

MADISON, Wis. -- In a four-three decision this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court backed a "least-change" approach to redistricting in the state.

The decision means the court will likely make minimal alterations when drawing Wisconsin's new legislative and congressional district maps, an important milestone in the redistricting process.

Sachin Chheda, director and co-founder of the Fair Elections Project, said the battle over the maps is far from over.

"They still have to develop and implement a map from the state court perspective," Chheda explained. "So they still have to come up with a map. And that will still take a few weeks, even maybe a couple of months."

Wisconsin's current district lines, which were drafted in 2011, have been criticized since then by anti-gerrymandering groups. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, a nonpartisan watchdog initiative, gave the Republicans' new proposals a failing grade for favoring GOP candidates.

Chheda pointed out even as the maps make their way through the courts, Wisconsinites can still make their voices heard in the redistricting process.

"There's ways for people to be engaged in the fight," Chheda asserted. "Both by just drawing public attention to it and by advocating for legislation that would change this for the long-term, at both the state and federal level."

In the court's ruling, the majority held any alterations to district lines should be limited to reflect population changes and adhere to other legal requirements, like the Voting Rights Act, but said the court will not take into account districts' political composition when drafting new maps.

Anthony LoCoco, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which brought the case to court, said while other partisan issues may be at play in redistricting, it is not the court's duty to weigh them when drafting new maps.

"There are other political considerations that can go into drawing maps, but that would be the legislature's and, to a lesser extent, the governor's role," LoCoco contended.

The redistricting process is undertaken once every decade, as states receive results from the U.S. Census. The 2020 census data came late this year, which means a compressed timeline for updating the district boundaries.

FARGO, N.D. -- The U.S. Supreme Court today takes up arguments in a high-stakes abortion case. It coincides with divisive arguments over voter fraud, mask mandates and school curriculum, and recent findings suggest many Americans could use more civics knowledge as they debate the issues.

This fall, the Annenberg Public Policy Center released its annual survey of overall public "smarts" about the branches of government. Adults who correctly named all three branches increased to 56%, the highest since the survey began in 2006.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, called it woefully inadequate.

"If one doesn't understand that there are three branches, doesn't understand the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, that lack of knowledge increases the likelihood that when asked whether someone thinks that if the Supreme Court issues unpopular rulings, it might be best to get rid of the Supreme Court, a person is more likely to say yes," Jamieson cautioned.

Some divisive issues in the scope of government and constitutional protections have surfaced in North Dakota, including the state taking part in a lawsuit to overturn a workplace vaccine requirement for COVID-19. Mask-mandate debates also surfaced at many school board meetings across the state this fall.

While there has been more conversation about boosting civics education in schools, Jamieson feels the responsibility lies with the public in general to learn more. She added foundational knowledge of government is always important, but must be stressed in times like these.

"In an environment in which the branches are under stress, it becomes more important -- not less -- that the public understand why the founders set up the structure that we have," Jamieson argued.

She pointed out the news media can help by including more information when reporting on legislation or other matters related to government.

The survey revealed 61% of Americans incorrectly believes under the First Amendment, Facebook is required to allow all people to express themselves freely on the platform. And just over one in three people surveyed knew the correct lengths of terms for federal lawmakers.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.