Counterpunch has this article about the U.S. District Court decision of March 20, 2020, upholding the ballot access laws that kept the Montana Green Party off the ballot in the November 2018 election. The decision upheld an unequal distribution requirement, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has twice said such unequal distribution requirements violate “one person, one vote”, and even though fifteen lower court decisions have also struck down such unequal distribution requirements.
The Montana Green Party will soon file a notice of appeal in the case, Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87.
You misuse the word “such”.
The distribution requirements in Montana are nothing like those in Illinois in ‘Moore v Ogilvie’.
The plaintiffs are unwilling to challenge the apportionment of the Montana legislature on the basis of population which is clearly in violation of the principles of ‘Reynolds v Sims’. If districts had equal numbers of adult citizens, and if the distribution requirement was based on active voters, the distribution requirement would be unremarkable.
Montana should eliminate party nomination entirely. All candidates would qualify as individuals. They should not be able to purchase ballot access. A support level of 0.1% of the active electorate (e.g. voters in last gubernatorial election) would be a reasonable level.
Instead, you have legislators like Denise Hayman, who like Steve Kelly is from Bozeman, pushing for an increase in the party access barriers with the backing of the public sector unions.