The Montana Republican Party is suing to prevent members of other parties from voting in its primaries. Briefs in the case, Ravalli County Republican Central Committee v McCulloch, will be filed with the U.S. District Court on this schedule: both sides will file by September 18, 2015; rebuttals will be filed by October 23.
http://m.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-gop-claims-ag-misconduct-in-closed-primary-lawsuit/article_5bb71acf-96ad-5604-851a-72e903ed200b.html?mobile_touch=true
More news on the subject.
In 2010 three persons associated with the controlling faction of the Ravalli Republican Party took control of the Ravalli County Commission.
They made a disastrous appointment to fill a vacancy in office of county treasurer. The treasurer’s staff was quitting, and none of the county’s bills were being paid. After the interim treasurer was removed, it was found she’d walked on a civil judgment in Georgia, and been fired from her previous job with the Missoula schools. Later Ravalli County considered whether to hire a bounty hunter to track down the ex-treasurer. Her husband who still lives in Ravalli County, said he knew where she was, but it was not in Montana.
The three insurgent commissioners also filled a vacancy in the county commission cause by the resignation of one of them, and a senate vacancy.
The two remaining insurgents were thumped in the Republican primary in 2014. The appointed treasurer had sought election, and received less than 4% of the vote in the primary.
The commissioner and senator who had been appointed faced challengers. The commissioner appointee won the nomination by a narrow margin, but did not win the general election easily. The senator appointee, lost to a representative who had beaten previously for the house seat nomination.
It is not unusual in Montana for legislative primaries to have more votes than the statewide races, and for local races to have even more votes cast, particularly in more rural areas.
Montana has a sizable legislature, and not very many people. Voters are likely to be personally acquainted with local candidates.
The election data was cherry-picked and sent to an out-of-state “expert” who claimed that it showed manipulation, when it most likely showed that people wanted an opportunity to select who would govern them.