Montanans Opposed to I-166 v. State
285 P.3d 435
Mont.2012Background
- Petitioners seek an original pre-election proceeding under §13-27-316, MCA, to bar Initiative 166 (1-166) from appearing on the ballot.
- 1-166 would declare corporations not entitled to constitutional rights and direct state and federal officials to implement spending restrictions and to push a federal constitutional amendment.
- Secretary of State forwarded 1-166 for Legislative Services Division review and then to the Attorney General; AG approved the legal sufficiency and revised only the purpose statement.
- Petitioners allege the ballot statements fail to meet statutory requirements and that 1-166 is unlawful for multiple reasons including being a resolution, an improper constitutional amendment directive, and a multi-subject measure.
- The Court denied the petition, holding the Attorney General’s review and the approved statements complied with law; concurrence and dissent discussed broader constitutional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AG’s review can address substantive legality pre-election | Petitioners contend AG should review substantive legality | AG’s review is limited to legal sufficiency of submission | AG review limited to sufficiency; petition denied on that basis |
| Whether 1-166 facially complies with Article III, §4 | 1-166 violates constitutionally reserved initiative power | 1-166 falls within initiative scope? | 1-166 facially violates Article III, §4 and is not a valid pre-election measure |
| Whether 1-166 is a law rather than a policy or resolution | 1-166 should be treated as a law | 1-166 is a policy/resolve directing officials | 1-166 not a valid law; facially defective as policy/invalid under Article III, §4 |
| Whether the ballot language satisfies statutory requirements | Language misstates purpose/implications | Language meets §13-27-312(2)(4) requirements | Ballot language found to meet required standards; relief denied |
| Whether the Court should grant pre-election relief | Court should block 1-166 pre-election | Pre-election review is limited; election results may later be challenged | Court declined to grant relief; petition denied on the merits of the challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Reichert v. State, 2012 MT 111 (Mont. 2012) (pre-election challenges and facial validity concerns about ballot measures)
- Harper v. Waltermire, 213 Mont. 425, 691 P.2d 826 (Mont. 1984) (limits on pre-election challenges and constitutional defects in initiative)
- Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General, 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2011) (discussed pre-election challenge and Citizens United context)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (fundamental First Amendment protections apply to corporate political spending)
- American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 132 S. Ct. 2490 (2012) (federal constitutional amendment prospects and federalism considerations)
- Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1978) (First Amendment framework focusing on protecting speech regardless of speaker)