COPP v. Republican Party, 485 P.3d 741

In July 2018 the Montana Democratic Party complained to the Commissioner of Political Practices (COPP) that the Montana Republican Party failed to comply with campaign-reporting laws for 2016–2018.
COPP began an investigation and informally requested documents; the Montana Republican Party declined to produce anything beyond publicly filed reports.
On June 12, 2019 COPP issued a subpoena for production of documents citing § 13-37-111(2)(c), MCA, and set a July 12 deadline; the Party did not comply.
COPP petitioned the First Judicial District Court to compel compliance and sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Montana Republican Party, holding § 13-37-111(2)(c) does not authorize COPP to issue documentary subpoenas and that COPP must use § 13-35-108 to seek court-compelled production.
COPP appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which affirmed the district court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 13-37-111(2)(c), MCA, authorizes COPP to issue a subpoena for production of documents in an election-law investigation	COPP: its power to “require the production” of records implicitly includes authority to issue documentary subpoenas (necessary enforcement “with real teeth”)	Montana Republican Party: statute separately authorizes subpoenas for witnesses but only authorizes COPP to “require the production” of documents, so COPP lacks independent documentary subpoena power; court oversight is required	The Supreme Court held § 13-37-111(2)(c) does not authorize COPP to issue subpoenas for documents; COPP must use § 13-35-108 to obtain court orders compelling production, preserving judicial oversight and due process

Comm’r of Political Practices for Mont. v. Wittich, 400 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2017) (plain-meaning statutory construction governs interpretation of COPP statutes)
Larson v. State, 434 P.3d 241 (Mont. 2019) (clear statutory language controls; no further construction if plain)
Mont. Vending, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 78 P.3d 499 (Mont. 2003) (plain meaning of statute controls interpretation)
Zinvest, LLC v. Gunnersfield Enters., 405 P.3d 1270 (Mont. 2017) (different statutory language implies different meanings)
City of Missoula v. Fox, 450 P.3d 898 (Mont. 2019) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Town & Country Foods, Inc. v. City of Bozeman, 203 P.3d 1283 (Mont. 2009) (summary judgment criteria)
Montana Human Rights Div. v. City of Billings, 649 P.2d 1283 (Mont. 1982) (example of administrative subpoena power considered in other contexts)
Clements v. Airport Auth., 69 F.3d 321 (9th Cir. 1995) (due-process principle: hearing before an impartial tribunal)
Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) (due-process requirement of impartial adjudicator)