Reichert v. STATE EX REL. McCULLOCH
2012 MT 111
| Mont. | 2012Background
- LR-119 (SB 268) would amend Montana’s constitutionally defined qualifications and selection of Supreme Court justices via a statutory referendum, creating seven geographic districts and district-based elections; it would also shift chief justice selection to be by the seven justices from among themselves and add a residency/qualified-elector requirement for initial district elections.
- LR-119 would add a residency and voting-registration requirement for Supreme Court candidates, and require justices to be elected from seven districts, disenfranchising statewide voters.
- The referendum is facially unconstitutional because constitutional qualifications for Supreme Court justices are set by the Montana Constitution and cannot be added to or altered by a statutory referendum.
- The district court held LR-119 invalid in its facial provisions and unable to be severed, and the Secretary of State was enjoined from placing LR-119 on the ballot.
- Plaintiffs are Montana citizens challenging LR-119; the State sought to defend certification and ballot placement of LR-119; several legislative amici intervened but were not parties.
- The State sought expedient resolution due to election deadlines, leading to expedited briefing and immediate decision on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-retiring justices must recuse themselves. | Legislators argue four non-retiring justices have a disqualifying interest. | State argues no due process or Code concerns mandate recusal. | No recusal required. |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ challenge to LR-119 is justiciable. | Challenge presents concrete, ripe constitutional issues. | Issues are speculative and not ripe. | Challenge is ripe and justiciable. |
| Whether LR-119 is constitutionally defective. | LR-119 adds qualifications and district-based structure contrary to constitutional framework. | LR-119 implements or adjusts operation within constitutional allowances. | LR-119 is facially unconstitutional. |
| Whether constitutionally infirm provisions can be severed from the referendum. | Invalid provisions could be severed to salvage remaining parts. | Severability should apply; valid portions may stand. | Invalid provisions cannot be severed; referendum remains invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (due process recusal standard; objective bias risk; extreme facts)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1927) (mayor-judge pecuniary interest requires disqualification)
- Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1971) (conduct of contemnor; due process in trial proceedings)
- Lavoie v. State of Alabama, 475 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1986) (remote/contingent interest not sufficient for disqualification)
- Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357 (4th Cir. 1976) (remote, contingent interest not mandatory recusal)