Montana Ass'n of Counties v. State Ex Rel. Fox
389 Mont. 183
| Mont. | 2017Background
- CI-116 ("Marsy’s Law") was approved by Montana voters on Nov. 8, 2016, adding Article II, §36 (victims’ rights) with many specific rights and definitions; it was to take effect July 1, 2017.
- Petitioners (MACo and coalition) filed an original action seeking declaratory relief, injunction, and decertification, arguing CI-116 violated Montana Const. Art. V §11(3) (single-subject for legislation) and Art. XIV §11 (separate-vote for constitutional amendments).
- The Supreme Court accepted original jurisdiction, stayed implementation, and framed the dispute as a pure legal question about compliance with Article XIV §11’s separate-vote requirement.
- The State argued the single-subject clause does not apply to initiatives and CI-116 did not alter other constitutional provisions such that separate votes were required; the State also urged rejection of an "amendment-by-implication" approach.
- The Court held Article V §11(3)’s single-subject rule applies to legislative bills only and not to constitutional initiatives, but concluded CI-116 violated Article XIV §11 because it would effect multiple substantive, not-closely-related constitutional changes (both explicit and implicit).
- Remedy: the Court voided CI-116 in its entirety, enjoined implementation/enforcement, and decertified the election results as to CI-116.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Justiciability | Original jurisdiction appropriate due to imminent implementation and purely legal question | Normal trial/appeal inadequate; but State did not contest original jurisdiction | Court accepted original jurisdiction (pure legal question; urgency) |
| Applicability of single-subject rule | Article V §11(3) (single-subject) should apply to initiatives (CI-116 violates it) | Single-subject clause governs legislative bills, not constitutional initiatives | Single-subject requirement does not apply to constitutional amendments by initiative (Article V governs Legislature) |
| Separate-vote requirement (scope) | CI-116 implicitly amends multiple constitutional provisions; each required separate vote | CI-116 does not expressly change other provisions; separate-vote should not be read to prohibit implied effects; narrow reading avoids eviscerating initiative power | Adopted test: an initiative violates Art. XIV §11 if it would make two or more substantive changes to the Constitution that are not closely related; CI-116 did so (implicit and explicit changes) |
| Application to CI-116 / Remedy | CI-116 effects changes to many provisions (due process, bail, criminal procedure, accused's rights, privacy, Supreme Court rulemaking re: attorneys, etc.); voters forced to accept all in one vote -> void measure | State argued many changes are closely related to victims’ rights and that implied amendments should not be counted; urged upholding initiative | Court found CI-116 impliedly and substantively changed multiple, not-closely-related constitutional provisions and therefore violated separate-vote rule; CI-116 void in entirety, implementation enjoined, election decertified |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. State, 293 Mont. 274, 975 P.2d 325 (1999) (distinguishes separate-vote from single-subject and invalidates an initiative that amended multiple constitutional provisions without separate votes)
- Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 959 P.2d 49 (Or. 1998) (adopts a closely-related functional test for separate-vote challenges to initiatives)
- State ex rel. Corry v. Cooney, 70 Mont. 355, 255 P. 1007 (1924) (earlier Montana separate-vote jurisprudence treating amendments as a single plan or purpose)
- Fugina v. Donovan, 104 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. 1960) (discussion of separate-vote rule objectives and logrolling concerns)
- Oregon v. Rogers, 288 P.3d 544 (Or. 2012) (acknowledges that adding new matter to the constitution constitutes at least one change and applies Armatta-style analysis)