Montana AFL-CIO v. McCulloch
2016 MT 200
| Mont. | 2016Background
- I-181 is a citizen initiative to create the "Montana Biomedical Research Authority" to award grants for research into brain diseases and mental illness, funded by up to $20 million/year of state general obligation bonds for ten years (cumulative $200 million).
- The initiative would create a biomedical research fund outside the state treasury, authorize the board of examiners to issue bonds at the Authority’s request, and express the people’s intent/request for implementing legislation including a statutory appropriation.
- Montanans for Research and Cures sponsored I-181; Secretary of State Linda McCulloch certified that sufficient signatures qualified I-181 for the November 8, 2016 ballot.
- Petitioners (Montana AFL-CIO, Montana Taxpayers Association, MEA‑MFT, IBEW Local 223, and individuals) filed an original-action petition asking the Montana Supreme Court to declare I-181 facially unconstitutional and enjoin certification for the ballot.
- The Court considered whether it could exercise original jurisdiction to resolve a pre-election facial constitutional challenge given statutory limits enacted in 2007 and prior precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court may exercise original jurisdiction to decide a facial constitutional challenge to a ballot initiative pre-election | Petitioners: Court may hear the purely legal, statewide, urgent question under M. R. App. P. 14(4) and § 3-2-205(2), and should enjoin certification | Respondents: 2007 statutory amendments limited original jurisdiction; such substantive constitutional challenges must proceed in district court and on appeal | Denied: Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction for a pre-election facial challenge; statute limits original jurisdiction to certain preliminary review functions |
| Whether urgency justifies expedited pre-election review | Petitioners: filing four weeks before certification deadline creates urgency warranting original review | Respondents: statutory framework and precedent counsel against hasty pre-election constitutional rulings; petitioners had time to seek district-court relief | Denied: Court declined to rush consideration of constitutional issues in pre-election posture |
| Whether I-181 is a "law" subject to pre-enactment substantive constitutional review by this Court | Petitioners: initiative can be reviewed on its face before enactment | Respondents: an initiative is not yet a law; substantive facial review traditionally occurs post-enactment via district-court actions and appeals | Court: Agreed an initiative is not a law and declined to reach merits; reserved substantive review for ordinary process if measure becomes law |
| Remedy requested (injunction preventing certification) | Petitioners: seek injunction enjoining certification of I-181 for the ballot | Respondents: oppose injunctive relief in original proceeding | Denied without prejudice: petitioners may file appropriate civil action if the measure becomes law |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. State, 374 Mont. 405, 328 P.3d 604 (Mont. 2014) (interpreting 2007 amendments limiting this Court’s original jurisdiction over ballot measures)
- MEA‑MFT v. McCulloch, 366 Mont. 266, 291 P.3d 1075 (Mont. 2012) (ballot measure struck after district-court litigation and appeal)
- Reichert v. State, 365 Mont. 92, 278 P.3d 455 (Mont. 2012) (ballot measure invalidated following district-court proceedings and appellate review)
- In re Clark’s Estate, 105 Mont. 401, 74 P.2d 401 (Mont. 1937) (courts’ duty to declare laws repugnant to the constitution)