Counties and committee press for clearer UOCAVA verification, voter‑roll maintenance and more county support

Miss Power presented staff memos comparing Montana's UOCAVA and voter‑list maintenance practices to other states and summarized techniques such as the USPS National Change of Address, motor‑vehicle change feeds, ERIC membership, and return jury notices. She said Montana already uses NCOA and targeted mailings and that motor‑vehicle systems can be programmed to provide change‑of‑address updates but that cost and timeline are unknown.

County election administrators described day‑to‑day operational realities. Regina Plettenberg (Ravalli County) and Janelle Tuchek (Fergus County) explained most UOCAVA ballots returned to their counties come via email or a portal; counties maintain separate logs and a resolution board for ballots that cannot be machine‑read. Several counties said handling overseas ballots is labor‑intensive and that timelines matter for deployed military voters who may be out of reach in combat zones; clerks cautioned that stricter deadlines could disenfranchise voters with limited connectivity.

Administrators also noted verification challenges: Montana permits certain overseas citizens who never resided in the U.S. to register under current law for federal ballots only; several county officials said the number is small but suggested the committee consider whether tighter verification rules or restricting ballots to federal contests would be appropriate. Staff noted that overseas voters must reapply annually and that counties already have tools such as the FPCA (federal postcard application) to collect required data.

The committee requested several concrete follow‑ups: a county‑by‑county breakdown of UOCAVA voters and the military/nonmilitary split; a review of how many counties include school and special‑district ballots for UOCAVA voters; clarification about which parts of the SOS memo are not being provided publicly; and options to require a phone number on registration forms (with an unlisted option) to speed remediation of incomplete ballots.

Next steps: Staff will request the SOS provide a detailed UOCAVA breakdown by county, documentation on the electronic ballot module, and clarify whether the MAR/online access has been affected by COPP's platform changes. Staff will report back with options for list maintenance frequency, DMV change‑feed possibilities and a draft proposal on mandatory phone numbers that protects privacy with an unlisted flag for public exports.