MEA-MFT v. Fox (LR-126)
374 Mont. 1
Mont.2014Background
- LR-126 is a legislative referendum placed on the November 2014 ballot that would end election-day (same-day) voter registration and require registration/changes by 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.
- The bill title included an express reference that the statute would ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); the Attorney General prepared a short ballot statement summarizing the change in registration deadlines.
- Petitioners challenged the measure’s legal sufficiency, arguing the bill title’s NVRA language is inaccurate and misleading because the NVRA does not require elimination of same-day registration, and thus the title fails the Montana constitutional requirement that a bill’s subject be clearly expressed in its title.
- Legislative drafting notes show the NVRA language was added to ensure the Secretary of State’s driver’s-license voter-registration form complied with federal law; the Secretary of State and others warned the Legislature the title might confuse voters but amendments removing the NVRA reference were defeated.
- The Attorney General argued the title accurately reflects language in the bill and that the legal-sufficiency review does not permit withholding a legislative referendum from the ballot for substantive defects.
- The Court found the NVRA reference could cause voter confusion but concluded removal from the ballot was not warranted; it ordered the Attorney General to revise the statement of purpose and implication to clarify that the NVRA does not require elimination of election-day registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bill title is inaccurate/misleading due to NVRA reference | Title falsely suggests NVRA requires ending same-day registration; therefore title fails constitutional "clearly expressed" requirement | Title accurately summarizes bill language added to address NVRA compliance concerns during drafting | Title not voided; court finds potential confusion but defers to Legislature’s title choice and orders remedy in ballot statement |
| Whether Attorney General may withhold a legislative referendum from the ballot for alleged substantive constitutional defects | Petitioners sought removal of LR-126 from ballot due to title defect | AG: legal-sufficiency review does not authorize withholding a legislative referendum for substantive defects | AG may not remove the referendum; court denies request to strike LR-126 from ballot |
| Appropriate remedy for voter confusion created by title | Remove measure from ballot | Revise ballot statement to clarify intent and NVRA relationship | Court orders AG to revise the statement of purpose and implication to state that NVRA does not require elimination of election-day registration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKinney, 29 Mont. 375, 74 P. 1095 (court gives liberal construction to legislative titles; title sufficient if body treats subjects mentioned)
- State ex rel. Wenzel v. Murray, 178 Mont. 441, 585 P.2d 663 (title review principles applied to ballot measures)
- Harper v. Greeley, 234 Mont. 259, 763 P.2d 650 (court reluctant to void ballot title absent clear deception; guard against deceptive titles but give deference)
- Chouteau County v. Grossman, 172 Mont. 373, 563 P.2d 1125 (principle of maximizing people’s power in initiative/referendum context)
- Montanans Opposed to I-166 v. State of Montana, 365 Mont. 520, 285 P.3d 435 (AG’s legal-sufficiency review limitations; cannot withhold legislative referendum from ballot)
- Town of Whitehall v. Preece, 288 Mont. 55, 956 P.2d 743 (discussed in context of prior precedent and other grounds)