Montana’s signature-gathering window for statewide ballot measures closed June 19, and supporters of three proposed initiatives say they expect to qualify for the November general election ballot. Of the eight measures that launched petition drives this year, most fell short — leaving a narrowed field heading into the summer verification period.
What Could Be on the Ballot
The three measures with the strongest prospects are Constitutional Initiative 133, Constitutional Initiative 132, and statutory Initiative 194. CI-132 would require nonpartisan elections for Montana judges. I-194 would prohibit corporate spending in Montana elections — a statutory version of a proposal that has deep roots in the state’s century-old campaign finance tradition.
CI-133 is focused on the ballot initiative process itself. The measure would amend the Montana Constitution to guarantee what supporters describe as impartial, transparent, predictable, and expeditious procedures for putting measures before voters. It would also bar government interference — including the use of state resources — to support or oppose any ballot question.
The Montanans Decide committee submitted more than 100,000 signatures for CI-133, well above the 60,241 required for a constitutional initiative. Constitutional measures also require qualifying signatures from voters in at least 40 of Montana’s 100 legislative districts. Statutory initiatives carry a lower bar: 30,121 statewide signatures and support across 34 legislative districts.
SK Rossi, the campaign manager for CI-133, argued the measure has appeal across party lines. “Montanans understand the value of the ballot initiative process itself, even if they don’t understand necessarily the nitty-gritty,” Rossi said. She characterized it as a broadly shared civic concern, adding, “I think that it’s a nonpartisan issue. The ballot initiative process is for everyone.”
Measures That Fell Short
Several other initiatives did not make it to the submission deadline. Matthew Monforton, who sponsored two property valuation cap proposals — CI-129 and CI-130 — acknowledged he would not gather enough signatures for either. State Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, suspended his CI-134 campaign after running out of time.
CI-131, an earlier nonpartisan judicial elections proposal, ended its campaign after supporters consolidated behind CI-132. A constitutional amendment version of the corporate spending measure, CI-135, was delayed by court proceedings and could not gather signatures in time.
What Happens Next
Submitting signatures does not guarantee ballot placement. County election officials across Montana must now review the petitions and certify which signatures are valid. They are required to report their findings to the Montana Secretary of State by July 17. Only after that review will it be clear which measures have officially qualified.
Signature validity reviews can be consequential — gathering well above the minimum threshold, as CI-133’s organizers did, provides a buffer against disqualified signatures. Measures that submitted totals closer to the minimum carry more risk of falling short after review.
Broader Context
Montana’s ballot initiative process has been an active arena for policy change outside the legislature, which meets in regular session only in odd-numbered years. The 2025 session addressed a range of contested issues, and several of the statewide measure campaigns this year reflect ongoing debates — from property tax relief to judicial selection to campaign finance — that did not reach full resolution at the Capitol.
The outcome of the signature reviews will shape what voters see when they go to the polls November 3. County-level election administration is already under scrutiny this cycle; in eastern Montana, Richland County recently completed a primary audit that confirmed its results were accurate. A similar level of care will govern how petition signatures are counted and reported statewide in the coming weeks.
If all three measures qualify, Montanans would face decisions this fall on judicial election structure, corporate campaign spending, and the rules governing the initiative process itself — a notably consequential set of direct-democracy questions for an off-year election cycle.