325 P.3d 1204
Mont.2014Background
- 2013 redistricting created 100 house and 50 senate districts; two holdover senators were assigned under the final plan.
- A holdover senator occupies a seat under the old districting and serves the final two years without standing for election in the immediate general election.
- The Commission submitted its final plan to the Secretary of State on Feb. 12, 2013, and dissolved thereafter.
- Plaintiffs—a group of registered voters—sued in Wheatland County challenging the Jones Amendment affecting holdover assignments.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the right to suffrage, right of participation, and related constitutional provisions; Counts IV–VII were later dismissed; Count VIII added alleging lack of public observation of deliberations.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State; Plaintiffs appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to know—open meetings violated by private pre-meeting discussions | Plaintiffs claim constructive quorum via private talks violated Section 9 | No quorum or deliberation occurred outside public meetings; rule not adopted | No violation; no meeting outside public session by a majority |
| Right of participation—public input requirements applicable to the Commission | Commission violated Section 8 by withholding details and public input | Commission not an agency subject to Section 8; substantially open process | No violation; Commission exempt as not a governmental agency; public participation was maximized |
| Right of suffrage—equal protection and voting in holdover context | Holdover assignments affect 95% of Senate District 15 voters; rights diminished | Redistricting can affect population deviations; relief by striking amendment not warranted | No merit; redistricting deviations are permissible and limiting relief would shift harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheat v. Brown, 2004 MT 33 (MT Supreme Court 2004) (constitution assigns redistricting to Commission; legislature may make recommendations; procedural context for open proceedings)
- Bryan v. Yellowstone Co. Eлem. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 2002 MT 264 (MT Supreme Court 2002) (Section 9 broader than Section 8; open meeting standards apply to public bodies)
- Boulder Monitor v. Jefferson High Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2014 MT 5 (MT Supreme Court 2014) (liberal open meeting construction; sub-quorum observation not a full meeting)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (legislative reapportionment is primarily a legislative concern; one-person-one-vote context guiding redistricting)