Commissioner of Political Practices v. Bannan
2015 MT 220
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Terry E. Bannan, a Gallatin County resident, ran in the 2010 primary for House District 68 and lost.
- The Commissioner of Political Practices (COPP) issued a January 22, 2014 decision finding sufficient evidence that Bannan violated campaign practice and finance laws and should be civilly adjudicated.
- COPP forwarded its sufficiency finding to the Lewis and Clark County Attorney on February 11, 2014; the Lewis and Clark County Attorney waived participation on March 2, 2014 under § 13-37-124(2), MCA.
- Bannan filed a declaratory action in Gallatin County (claiming COPP should have conferred with the Gallatin County Attorney) before COPP filed an enforcement action against him in Lewis and Clark County on March 5, 2014.
- Bannan moved to dismiss the Lewis and Clark enforcement action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing COPP was required to refer the matter to Gallatin County and thus Lewis and Clark courts lacked jurisdiction; the district court denied the motion.
- The Montana Supreme Court held the motion raised a statutory interpretation issue—not subject matter jurisdiction—dismissed the interlocutory appeal as premature, and declined to address the merits until final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Lewis and Clark District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because COPP failed to confer with Gallatin County under § 13-37-124, MCA | COPP (plaintiff) maintained the district court has jurisdiction to hear enforcement actions and the dispute concerns statutory interpretation, not jurisdiction | Bannan argued COPP was required to notify/consult the county where the alleged violations occurred (Gallatin), so Lewis and Clark lacked jurisdiction | The Court held the question is statutory interpretation, not subject matter jurisdiction; district court retained jurisdiction. The interlocutory appeal was dismissed as premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Cringle, 247 P.3d 706 (2010) (de novo review of district court subject-matter jurisdiction determinations)
- Pickett v. Cortese, 328 P.3d 660 (2014) (standards for reviewing dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ballas v. Missoula City Bd. of Adjustment, 172 P.3d 1232 (2007) (district court jurisdiction and limits on recasting issues as jurisdictional)
- Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 192 P.3d 186 (2008) (definition and scope of subject-matter jurisdiction)