MONTANA DECIDES: Election 2026
Dual Credit American Government | Election Research, Argumentative Essay & Town Hall
Election Day: November 3, 2026
Town Hall: Week of November 2–6
The Challenge
Democracy depends on an informed electorate. This November, Montanans will make decisions about government spending, constitutional rights, political representation, public safety, and the future direction of their state.
Your responsibility is to investigate the actual candidates and ballot initiatives appearing in the 2026 election, evaluate competing arguments, and develop your own informed positions.
You will then participate in a Congressional-style Town Hall, where you must defend your conclusions with evidence, challenge opposing arguments, and consider whether the debate changes your perspective.
The goal is not to follow a political party or repeat campaign slogans. It is to demonstrate independent thinking, credible research, and an understanding of American government.
Part I — Research the Ballot
A. Montana Statewide Ballot Initiatives
Research all three initiatives. Understand what a YES or NO vote would accomplish, why supporters advocate for the measure, and what concerns opponents raise.
InitiativeIssue and constitutional question
CI-132: Nonpartisan Judicial Elections:
Would amend the Montana Constitution to require judicial elections to remain nonpartisan. Should judicial election rules be protected in the Constitution rather than ordinary state law?
CI-133: Initiative and Referendum Rights:
Would strengthen constitutional protections for citizens proposing ballot initiatives, including procedural requirements and restrictions on government interference. How should direct democracy be balanced with legal review and government oversight?
I-194: Political Spending by Artificial Persons:
Would restrict political spending by corporations, nonprofits, and other legally recognized organizations, with penalties involving their privileges to do business in Montana. Should organizations have the ability to financially influence elections, and how does this intersect with First Amendment rights?
Consider: How do these initiatives relate to the Constitution, judicial independence, popular sovereignty, the First Amendment, and the appropriate limits of government?
B. Yellowstone County and Billings-Area Ballot Questions
These two proposals concern public safety, taxpayer obligations, and the future of the Yellowstone County Detention Facility.
Ballot questionWhat is proposed?
Detention Facility General Obligation Bond:
A $175 million bond, repaid over approximately 20 years, to expand and renovate the Yellowstone County jail. The proposal includes 332 new beds and improvements to existing facilities.
Yellowstone County Public Safety Levy:
A separate permanent levy, initially generating approximately $20 million annually, for public safety services, including the Sheriff's Office, County Attorney's Office, and related operating and capital costs.
The county estimates that, for a home valued at $300,000, the annual property-tax impact would be approximately $64 for the construction bond and $99 for the operations levy. Both proposals must pass for the planned jail expansion to proceed.
Consider:
Does the county need additional jail space, or should it prioritize alternatives such as treatment, rehabilitation, and reducing repeat offenses?
How should taxpayers evaluate construction costs against long-term operational costs?
Is the proposed approach fiscally responsible and likely to address the underlying problems?
What evidence supports or challenges the county's projections?
C. Candidates for Federal and Statewide Office
Research the candidates, their qualifications, priorities, and positions on at least three major policy issues.
PositionCandidates
U.S. Senate
Kurt Alme (R), Alani Bankhead (D), Seth Bodnar (Independent), Kyle Austin (Libertarian)
U.S. House — Montana District 2
Troy Downing (R), Brian J. Miller (D), Patrick McCracken (Libertarian), Michael D. Eisenhauer (Independent)
Montana Supreme Court — Seat 4
Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson (nonpartisan)
Public Service Commission — District 1
Jeff Pattison (R) and Angeline Cheek (D)
For the judicial race, investigate the role of constitutional interpretation, judicial independence, experience, and legal philosophy rather than assigning party labels.
D. Yellowstone County Offices
PositionCandidates
County Commissioner — District 1
Chris White (R), Danny Choriki (D); Hans Abbey is a registered independent write-in candidate
Sheriff/Coroner
Kent O'Donnell (R), Adam Chenoweth (D)
County Attorney/Public Administrator
Scott Twito (R)
Clerk and Recorder/Auditor/Surveyor
Jeff Martin (R)
Treasurer/Assessor/Superintendent of Schools
Hank Peters (R)
Justice of the Peace — Department 1
David Carter
Justice of the Peace — Department 2
Jeanne M. Walker
The 13th Judicial District also includes judicial retention questions involving Brett Linneweber (Department 4), Rod Souza (Department 5), Seth Cunningham (Department 9), and Ed Zink (Department 10).
E. Montana Legislature — Billings and Yellowstone County
Each voter has one state House district and one state Senate district. Research the candidates in your district, or another Billings-area district assigned by the instructor.
State Senate
DistrictCandidatesSD 18Greg Kmetz (R), Stan Taylor (D)SD 19Chris Rindal (R), Deanna Daigrepont (D)SD 22Daniel Zolnikov (R); registered write-in candidates Elijah Tidswell and Cari OlsonSD 23Emma Kerr-Carpenter (D), Joanna Oblander (R)SD 25Dennis Lenz (R), Julie Hippler (D)
Montana House of Representatives — Yellowstone County and surrounding legislative districts
DistrictCandidates
HD 35 Gary Parry (R), Natalie Parker (D)
HD 38 Greg Oblander (R)
HD 39 Kerri Seekins Crowe (R), Melissa Smith (D)
HD 40 Mike Vinton (R), Gabriel Bradshaw (D)
HD 42 Sidney “Chip” Fitzpatrick (D), Jeremiah Jabs (R)
HD 43 Larry Brewster (R), Rudolf Haden (D)
HD 44 Katie Zolnikov (R), Mike Eaton (D)
HD 45 Denise Baum (D), Bryce Walston (R)
HD 46 Denise Joy (D), Kim Welzenbach (R)
HD 47 James Reavis (D), John Maxwell (R)
HD 48 Curtis Schomer (R), Tucker Colvin (D)
HD 49 Charlie Loveridge (R), Rebecca Noell (D)
HD 50 Stewart Harris (R), Mark Peters (D)
HD 51 Jodee Etchart (R), Precious McKenzie (D)
HD 52 Stacy Zinn (R), Elizabeth Heald (D)
HD 53 Troy Charbonneau (R), Matthew J. Hankins (D)
HD 54 Lee Deming (R), Janine Coole (D)
Not every race listed here will appear on an individual Billings ballot. Verify district assignments and ballot status using the official election resources.
Part II — Evaluate the Evidence
Start with Ballotpedia and supplement your research with credible, independently verifiable sources.
Recommended research resources
You may also use the Billings Gazette, KTVQ, KULR-8, official candidate websites, public debates, voting records, and relevant government documents.
Campaign materials provide useful evidence of a candidate's stated priorities, but they are advocacy sources. Compare those claims with independent reporting and public records.
As you research, distinguish among facts, opinions, promises, and predictions. Identify at least one credible argument that challenges your initial position.
Part III — The Argumentative Election Essay
Length: 700–1,00 words
Sources: At least THREE credible sources, including an official government source and independent reporting
Format: Typed, organized argumentative essay with citations
Your essay must address three areas:
One statewide ballot initiative. Clearly advocate YES or NO, explain the proposed change, and support your position using constitutional principles and credible evidence.
One Yellowstone County ballot question. Evaluate either the jail construction bond or the public safety levy. Address costs, anticipated benefits, consequences, and alternatives.
One contested candidate race. Compare at least two candidates for the same office, examine their positions and qualifications, and make an evidence-based argument for the candidate you would support.
Your essay should include a clear thesis, specific evidence, explanations connecting the evidence to your conclusions, and a serious counterargument that you address thoughtfully.
Research expectations
Use at least two specific facts or documented examples for each of your three main arguments.
Accurately represent opposing positions before responding to them.
Identify one piece of evidence that complicated or weakened an opinion you initially held.
Explain the relevance of at least one constitutional principle, government power, or institutional responsibility.
Cite sources clearly enough that another student can verify your claims.
Academic integrity: Your essay must demonstrate your own research and reasoning. AI-generated arguments or essays are not substitutes for original work. Be prepared to explain your evidence, identify where it came from, and defend your conclusions without reading from a prepared script.
Part IV — The Montana Election Town Hall
During election week, our classroom will become a public Town Hall, with the instructor serving as Speaker and moderator.
Students will engage in a structured discussion covering statewide ballot initiatives, Yellowstone County questions, and major candidate races.
Town Hall procedure
Opening statement: Present a clear position in 30–45 seconds, supported by at least one verified fact.
Moderated questioning: After speaking, yield to questions from opposing perspectives or the Speaker.
Opposition response: Another participant may challenge the evidence, reasoning, or assumptions presented.
Unmoderated caucus: Short breaks will allow students to consult research, organize arguments, and reconsider positions.
Final deliberation: Students may revise their positions before submitting a simulated election ballot.
The Speaker may introduce new evidence, question misleading or unsupported statements, and ask participants to explain the consequences of their proposals.
Town Hall expectations
Support arguments with evidence, not party slogans.
Engage with the strongest opposing arguments rather than attacking individuals.
Ask substantive questions and respond directly when questioned.
Participate actively, including when your preferred position is unpopular.
Remain open to changing your mind when credible evidence warrants it.
Students may defend their own conclusions or a researched position assigned for purposes of debate. No student will be required to disclose their real political preferences or intended vote.
Evaluation
You will be evaluated on the quality of your research, reasoning, and participation — not on the political positions you choose.
Final Question
If democracy depends on the consent of the governed, what responsibility do citizens have to understand the decisions they are making — and what should they do when the available evidence contradicts their political beliefs?
