*1 TO a Political RECALL, CITIZENS RIGHT individually TREVIS Committee; BUTCHER, and as Political Committee Treasurer; individually EDWARD B. and as BUTCHER, Chairman, Political Committee Appellants, Plaintiffs v. through

STATE OF MONTANA, capacity MIKE McGRATH, his as the Attorney General; and BRAD JOHNSON, capacity Secretary

in his of State, Respondents. Defendants No. DA 06-0509. 3, August Submitted on Briefs August Decided 2006 MT 192. 333 Mont. 153. 142 P.3d 764. *2 Gallus, Attorney Law, Helena.

For Chris J. Appellants: McGrath, General; Attorney Mike Respondents: For Hon. Johnstone, Anthony Attorneys Assistant Buey Pamela D. Counsel, General, Helena; Secretary Doggett, Legal Janice Montana State, Helena. Court. Opinion JUSTICE MORRIS delivered (Appellants) Right representatives to Recall and its Citizens First Judicial the order of the District Court appeal from District, the draft statements County, affirming and Clark Lewis (CI-98) by Attorney prepared for Initiative Number 98 Constitutional General). (Attorney We affirm. General Mike McGrath AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND PROCEDURAL which, own Appellants’ of CI-98 Appellants proponents are words, things, give right a constitutional “would, among other voters if and when voters determine justices judges recall or elected of CI-98 to text cause exists.” submitted appropriate 2006 in with the January accord Legislative Montana Services Attorney MCA. The General prepared and circulated them for a first draft CI-98’s ballot statements parties potential to eleven different that shared interest comment Appellants responded the ballot measure. revised ballot statements. The General’s statement of reads as follows: currently provide

Montana the recall public statutes for officials, including justices judges, court for or physical state or fitness, office, lack of incompetence, mental violation the oath of misconduct, felony official or conviction of a offense. This measure amends the Montana for recall provide by petition Constitution to justices judges It any upon state for reason. is effective approval. The General’s statements of for CI-98 read: ] FOR amending

[ Montana Constitution to for by petition justices judges any recall of state court reason. amending [ ] AGAINST the Montana Constitution to provide recall petition of state court reason. Secretary approved of State on March complaint filed March on

13,2006, challenging the statements and the requesting District Court 13-27-312, comply to alter the statements to with MCA. The District § July 7, determined hearing Court held on 2006. The court the statutory General’s statements satisfied requirements the July 10,2006, and issued order on the affirming Attorney General’s ballot right statements. exercised their under 13-27- § MCA, 316(5), the appealed District decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW where, here, generally applicable We review situations as the law ¶6 is undisputed satisfy statutory the issue whether the facts the standard, as questions Stop mixed of law and fact. Over Spending State, 178, McGrath, 10, 42, v. Montana ex rel. 2006 MT 333 Mont. ¶ 10, 788, 10, 2256486, P.3d 139 2006 WL 10. We review mixed ¶ ¶ ¶ State, 10, of questions Duffy 228, law and fact de novo. v. 2005 MT ¶ 369, 10, 120 328 Mont. P.3d ¶ ¶

DISCUSSION the Attorney Whether General’s ballot statements for CI-98 ¶7 13-27-312, satisfy the of MCA. § subject compliance Ballot statements are to court review 156 13-27-312, 13-27-316(1),(2), (5), key MCA. provision MCA.See §

§ requires the the statement of and the purpose statute the implication “express impartial explanation statements of true and proposed plain, easily the in understood issue may arguments prejudice not be or written so as to create for or 13-27-312(4), against MCA. The the measure.” Section statement of “explain[ purpose ] shall the of the measure” in a statement 13-27-312(2)(a), words. The statement exceeding not Section MCA. implication “explain[ implications the of a for and a vote ] shall vote exceeding measure” in words each. statements not 13-27-312(2)(b), Section MCA. nor claim that neither the statement of satisfy statutory requirements in that

statements of measure, they are they explain do not not completely impartial, they true and and that are drafted so as to create Appellants request that this Court prejudice against measure. MCA, authority it granted exercise the § 13-27-312, comply rewrite the ballot statements jurisdictions universally apply Courts in other almost rule they literary editorial Schulte type “do not sit some board.” (S.D. 2004), 495, 498. result, Long As a these courts will v. N.W.2d summary simply because believe a better one “invalidate (Alaska Governor, Burgess could be written.” v.Alaska Lieutenant Etc. 1982), 273, 276, courts agreed 654 P.2d n.7. We with these Spending Over expressly adopted Stop similar standard Accordingly, we defer to General’s rendition We statutory requirements. the statements meet the take provided in our opportunity expand analysis contained recent upon challenge Montana on another Stop decision initiative statement. purpose. Statement of satisfy does not Appellants assert that the statement “explain that the statement statutory requirement “58% the 100 words light measure” in fact that 13-27-312(2)(a),MCA. current law. See

allowed statute” focus on in that it that the first sentence creates Appellants claim unnecessary.” redundant and appear makes the “measure *4 Court’s ballot that we review the District initially We note 13-27-312, See 13-27- with MCA. solely compliance § statements § the 316, right grant Appellants MCA.The statute does not 18. We choosing. Stop of their explains determined that that statement previously have ordinary language, impartial, and is true and and not plain measure likely create for or the measure argumentative Murray the statute. State rel. Wenzel v. compliance constitutes ex 683, (1978), 441, 448, 585 P.2d 178 Mont. 637. truthfulness, respect the first sentence of the With on the recall regarding existing

General’s statement law of state and a true of the current justices represents court statement 2-16-603(1), MCA, provides status Montana law. Section for the any officer, including justices public judges. recall of state court As concluded, Court the sentence context provides District for the proposed measure. that Appellants’ argument the sentence not “explain does proposed measure” and fails to therefore meet 13-27-

312(2)(a), requirements, only MCA’s would be meritorious the first not, purpose. sentence constituted CI-98’s entire statement of It does however, in conjunction remaining must be read with the together sentences. initial contextual statement read with the following explains sentences the purpose of the measure-to amend the Montana Constitution right to enshrine the of citizens to recall state and judges-in compliance 13-27-312(2)(a), Appellants assert further that General’s statement of purpose provisions omits salient when it that states the measure amends constitution to provide recall “for reason” without explanation. further The reason for requiring the statement of purpose “is to fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment so voter will not be misled as to its purpose, can cast an intelligent Advisory informed ballot.” re Opinion Term Limits (Fla. 1998), 798, Pledge matter, 718 So.2d general As a the “title summary preceding an initiative need contain a complete not index catalog provisions of all within the People initiative.” v. Flores (Cal. 1986), 465, App. 223 Cal. Rptr. passed, Appellants’ long. measure is words If measure longest provision

would be the Montana Constitution a factor Appellants’ requires approximately two. brief 193 words to describe provisions the salient claim the statement omits. We to hold that a of purpose decline mechanisms, does include the limitations, details of measure’s waiting reporting, periods, deterrent for false voter percentage requirements, legislatively imposed discretionary bond within with the postings-all comply 100 words-does not statute. See (Mo. 2000), e.g., United Breeders Ass’n v. 19 S.W.3d Nixon Gamefowl limit, (noting that within confines of the 100-word *5 158

summary proposal”). “need not set out the details of the We limit recognize statutory inevitably that the 100-word Appellants leads to omission of some that would like to 17, As Stop include. we stated in every complete description part a of the measure “[n]ecessarily, Nonetheless, prerogative it is not our to alter the cannot be included.” 1-2-101, Legislature that has enacted. Section MCA. The statute the impartial a whittling an 885-word measure to “true and process Attorney to the explanation” degree involves discretion entrusted Legislature the that will not overturn absent General we Wenzel, 448, the See 178 at noncompliance with statute. Mont. 585 Attorney The omit P.2d 637-638. General’s decision to what provisions” does Appellants prevent characterize as “salient voter intelligent Advisory Opinion, from “an and informed ballot.” casting So.2d at 803. Moreover, that the statement that the measure we conclude any Although “for provides judicial for recall reason” true. that provisions” Appellants may “salient seek add likewise be true, they explain the details the measure as simply described recall that CI-98 would allow voters to state above. statement any accurately the intent court or “for reason” reflects any does CI-98 limit ofthe measure. Nowhere in its 885 words justice may fact, In judge for which a or be recalled. CI- on reasons declaring justification statement provides explicitly that recall, any “is sufficient if it forth reason petition reasons sets justice judge electoral with a ....” acknowledging dissatisfaction added). Thus, Attorney represents General’s statement (Emphasis explanation Attorney that the General a true and CI-98 13-27-312, plain language. See wrote then to the of whether question We turn against has to create prejudice been drafted so as must CI-98. We the statement of Appellants - - adoption.” advocacy argument proposal’s “eschew (Ariz. 1994), v. 886 P.2d Fairness in Ins. Greene and Acct. Reform directly in the point language cannot Instead, prohibition. that violates General’s statement resort the statement’s “limited must to claims that against the measure” and explanation creates implies recall regarding of the current General’s statement law unnecessary.” appear “redundant and the measure would Schulte, ballot attorney general’s explanation of a explained food the state sales and use taxes exempting measure from the measure would exempt food from the taxes and further explained measure, that the adopted, would “eliminate this source Schulte, of revenue.” 687 N.W.2d at 499. The proponents claimed that attorney general’s explanation was intended to create prejudice against the measure. The trial agreed and ordered the attorney general to excise the offending “negative editorial statement.” Schulte, 687 N.W.2d at 497. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and noted that attorney general’s explanation awas “narrowly crafted statement of the purpose legal effect” of the Schulte, measure. 687 N.W.2d at 499. rejected The court notions that negative statement created implications: implied “What is suggested by obviously used will he eye in the *6 beholder and necessarily vary will from reader to reader and voter to Schulte, voter.” 687 N.W.2d at 500. above, As noted the Attorney

¶22 General’s statement of contains true statements and is impartial. We with the court in Schulte that any negative implications by created what the Attorney General chose to omit in the statement of cannot support claim prejudice against of the Likewise, measure. whether a voter interprets Attorney the General’s accurate statement of the current law regarding recall to mean that CI-98 would be “redundant and unnecessary” does not rise to the creating level of prejudice against CI- 98. In light of the Appellants’ inability point to any parts to of the Attorney General’s statement of purpose biased, that are untrue or we decline to conclude that the statement was drafted to create against upon CI-98 based possible negative implications from what the Attorney General chose to omit or implications Attorney from the General’s decision to include the current state of the law regarding Schulte, recall. at N.W.2d We reiterate that the Legislature has designed the intricate

process by which Montana’s citizens may amend our constitution. See -316, 13-27-101 to §§ MCA. The process involves the legislative division, (1)(a), services MCA, 13-27-202 Secretary State, § the 13- § 27-202(3), (4), (6), voters, Montana 13-27-202(6), § General, 13-27-312, MCA, and, necessary, § judiciary, 13-27- § 316(1), (5), MCA. Within statutory scheme, Legislature purposefully has inserted the Attorney General-an by official elected the citizens of Montana—to write the ballot statements receiving after input from “parties on both sides of the issue to obtain their advice.” Section scheme, MCA.Within this the Legislature simply asks this Court to review the District Court’s decision and determine whether the ballot statements meet the 13-27-312, of 13-27-316(3)(a),(5),

MCA. MCA. Sections implication. Statements Appellants allege inadequacies similar statements implication purpose. Appellants as with the statement of claim explain to of the implication the statements “fail and omit that a should before measure” salient voter know regarding his or her assert casting vote measure. implication inform voters specifically the statements should person about that a who initiates a recall could incur possibility having to petitions, possibility false statements or the liability for petitions, deciding before for post bond cover costs successive against the measure. Legislature did not intend for the statements of We note measure, implication explain 13-27-312(2)(b), (4), The function. MCA. serve that See § requires implication simply explain statute the statements of and a measure. 13- implications of vote for vote Section limitation 27-312(2)(b), again, the 25-word imposed Once 13-27-312(2)(b),MCA, delete necessarily forces General to Flores, Rptr. like to include. 223 Cal. provisions Appellants would discretion rests with the General and we will 27-13-312, MCA. noncompliance disturb his absent with § 448, 585 Wenzel, 637-638;Stop P.2d at See Mont. at 17-18. ¶¶ argue portion that the ofthe statements of “the declaring that the measure amends Montana Constitution recall by petition state thereby *7 reason,” prejudice could voter confusion create cause erroneously that the voters against the measure. contend implication to mean that state interpret could statements recall, than a may for a rather dissatisfied justices judges petition how admittedly ambiguous, we fail to see qualified Although elector. against the measure and prejudice would create statements 13-27-312(4),MCA. thereby fail to with comply § ways by the fact that the two prejudice The lack of evident ¶28 First, true. as intended interpret the statement are both voter could CI-98 would Attorney implication, statements by the General’s justices. And petition electors to recall qualified authorize implicitly state court second, similarly would authorize CI-98 electors, capacity qualified petition their private judges, prejudice ambiguity does create potential recall another. This one Attorney implied General’s against the measure as what is and necessarily vary reader to reader voter to “will from Schulte, the Attorney 687 N.W.2d at 500. We will defer to voter.” 13-27-312, Stop decision absent a violation MCA. § General’s Montana, true, are implication 18. The statements of ¶ impartial, written for and a plainly explanations and of vote vote 13-27-312, against CI-98. See MCA. §

CONCLUSION We with the District Court’s conclusion that implication statement of statements 13-27-312, comply with the MCA. CI-98,

are all true the Attorney reflections General did not write them in a manner to create CI- light In of our conclusion that the General’s statements 13-27-312, comply MCA, with Appellants’ we decline invitation to Stop rewrite CI-98’s ballot statements. Over Spending ¶ Affirmed. LEAPHART, PREZEAU, JUSTICE sitting DISTRICT JUDGE SANDEFUR, RICE sitting JUSTICE and DISTRICT JUDGE JUSTICE WARNER concur.

JUSTICE COTTER concurs. I disagreement write separately state the Court’s ¶ “admittedly conclusion at 27 that the statements of are ambiguous.” my judgment, only reading a strained rendering incomplete illogical-would statements-one them result perceived If ambiguity. coherently, the statements are read their Otherwise, meaning is clear. I in the opinion. concur JUSTICE NELSON dissents. join Opinion. cannot the Court’s dissent. GRAY, dissenting.

CHIEF JUSTICE I respectfully opinion, dissent from the Court’s affirms the which largely District Court’s Memorandum and Order which-itself-is of rationale. I would District devoid reverse the Court. case, would, ordinary presumably In an we or at could-and least entry complete

I would-remand to District Court of a more complaint. rationale for dismissal of The District Appellants’ its parties’ Court’s order sets forth General’s statements arguments, regarding attorney general’s from a 1978 quotes case Addressing Appellants’ discretion and recites § first was argument sentence of statement of or the 1978 prejudicial, apply the District Court did not the statute case, argument “disagree[d]” Appellants’ but instead

162 argued because-although acknowledged Appellants the court had not correctly the law the sentence was incorrect-“the sentence states” and, [Attorney [G]eneral changed passed would be CI-98 “as argue[d],” “prejudicial” the sentence was “contextual” rather than “misleading.” addressing argument, After a different the court a “express explanation... concluded the statements true easily language” [Attorney “[t]he General’s] understood arguments nor are a statements are not written in such manner view, prejudice[.]” my “analysis’-consisting as to create this bare reasoning thorough any application statements without oflaw-does provide a sufficient basis for this Court to the District review permitted, practice Court’s decision. If time would our follow remanding something the District to us with we could Court See, Mills, 149, 20-21, properly. e.g., Marriage 2006 MT review ¶¶ 20-21, 20-21; 415, 815, Marriage 332 Mont. 138 P.3d In re ¶¶ ¶¶ Bartsch, 20, 1263, 99, 20, 28, 20; 88 2004 MT 321 Mont. P.3d ¶ ¶ 26-27, Trustees, 256, MT Philipsburg Motta v. School Bd. 323 ¶¶ 72, 673, 26-27, Unfortunately, Mont. 98 P.3d 26-27. ¶¶ ¶¶ and, thus, permit procedure timelines we face here do not usual we forced to of a are “review” somewhat vacuum. begin by disagreeing both the District Court’s Wenzel, support reliance on a conclusion that the There, in this properly

General exercised his discretion case. setting forth attorney general explanatory drafted an statement initiative, including facility major points of an a nuclear Board of Natural Resources approved could not be built unless (board)-as a by majority as of Montana voters-and sentence well rights stating “[t]he initiative would forbid limitations on compensation injuries resulting operation from persons seek Wenzel, opponent at An facility.” 178 Mont. at 585 P.2d that the initiative constituted “ban” or argued, among things, other precluded issuing it from a certificate “prohibition” because board facility it that no limits of a nuclear unless found for construction facility the amount of right to the to sue such a regard existed Wenzel, a suit. 178 Mont. that could be awarded such compensation 445-46, interpretation P.2d at 636. Based on this general’s initiative, attorney opponent argued and the “prohibition,” as “ban” or have included word such should rejected regard. no in that The Court attorney general had discretion attorney general’s language contention, holding long that so an choose he or she has discretion to statutory requirements, meets doing, In so the Court meeting requirements. language for those distinguished a case in prior explanatory which statement was clearly misleading because it did not mention that a tax apply individually-owned would stores as well as chain stores. Wenzel, 447-48, 178 Mont. at 585 P. 2d at 637-38. I with the *9 Wenzel, reasoning and result in the present but case bears little resemblance to it. 13-27-312(2)(a) (4), MCA, Sections and require Attorney

General to write a statement measure, for a ballot not to words, exceed 100 “express[es] which the true impartial explanation of the ballot in plain, easily issue understood language ... [not] so as to create against for or the measure.” The District Court and concluded, this Court have agree, and I that the statement at issue contains fewer than 100 plain words and is in easily language. understood The District Court and this Court also have concluded-at least essence-that General’s statement of purpose expresses the true and impartial explanation of the ballot issue a manner which does not create prejudice for or disagree it. I strenuously with these conclusions. In regard, agree I with the Court about impropriety altering attorney general’s an statements of and implication when those comply with relevant I statutes. also with the recognition every that not provision of an initiative-particularly lengthy initiative as as CI-98-must be included in a statement of purpose or reflected in statements of implication. My disagreement stems from the Court’s conclusion that the statements meet the statutory requirements 13-27-312(4), of § reasons, MCA. For following it my is view that those conclusions are incorrect. With regard to the “true and impartial” language contained in §

13-27-312(4),MCA, I offer the following interpretation which I believe Legislature’s reflects the intent. Dictionaries contain multiple definitions theof word “true.” For example, The AMERICANHERITAGE Dictionary English Language (4th 2000), ed. defines of the “[consistent “true” as with fact ... not false or erroneous.” This is a commonly meaning understood theof term. The second sentence ofthe Attorney General’s statement “[t]his reads measure amends the Montana Constitution for recall petition of state court any view, reason.” In this sentence is not factually correct provides justice because CI-98 for recall of a judge if, if, and only petitioners gather a specified signatures number majority of Montana electors vote for the recall at a subsequent election. I believe these are essential to voters’ subject

understanding of the initiative and are not mere “details” suggests Thus, discretionary “whittling,” as the Court 17-18. ¶¶ factually conclude the General’s statement of incorrect, and I reverse that basis would the District Court on alone. addition, appear In “true” does not on a stand observe word appears part phrase alone basis in MCA. It my opinion, “true and In explanation.” phrase requires comport General’s statement with another definition legitimate.” “true” from dictionary-namely, “[rjightful; the same words, I the Legislature require other do not believe intended to mere the Attorney language. factual correctness in Such an overweigh “true” interpretation ignore the word context would Nor appears. Legislature in which the word do I believe intended attorney general to hold such low standard almost factually which not incorrect would be was sufficient, anything correct it said legally whether words, measure. substantive all about In other would, attorney general effectively, be “ballot measure czar”-with This nearly absolute and unfettered discretion. cannot be intent of *10 Legislature. the Montana as light dictionary’s “impartial” “[n]ot of the same definition of

¶40 13-27-312(4), MCA, in partial unprejudiced,” ... § that not create for or requiring purpose prejudice the statement of measure, my being it view that-in addition to ballot is in the factually incorrect-the General’s statement of rightful, lacking case present legitimate, is not here. I will explaining explain. ballot measure issue lengthy can CI-98 is and somewhat dispute There be no that ¶41 Indeed, fairly task of complicated. suspect I all would that the summarizing such a ballot measure in no more than words is Nor, course, daunting. must the full 100 words be used. Here, contains 64 General’s statement ¶42 to set out the “context” CI-98 words. Of those 38 words are used officials, currently public recall of as “Montana statutes physical mental lack of including judges, state office, fitness, official violation of the oath incompetence, disagree misconduct, felony of a offense.” I do not that or conviction do factual error the 38 suggest nor I appropriate, context However, strenuously disagree using I with the notion words. to set in a majority of the words issue, as required explain than to context-rather 13-27-312(4), by MCA-can produce rightful, legitimate, impartial and unprejudiced explanation. that, In this respect, my reiterate firm conviction understand

CI-98, voters must be by informed the statement of signing petition suffice, mere of a will not and that the petition must signed by first be a specific number of subject electors and then be Moreover, an election. I appreciate reasoning while the Court’s in 15¶ the entire statement of purpose must be read together, respectfully suggest that primary purpose of an “explanation” should explain be to what a actually measure would do. Having addressed the first and second sentences ofthe statement

of purpose, sentence, I turn to the third “[i]t which reads is effective upon approval.” This only is the sentence I entirely believe is appropriate a partial explanation of CI-98. I would reverse the District Court and hold that the Attorney

General’s statement of of CI-98 does not meet the requirements 13-27-312(4), MCA. Consequently, I would conclude our statements regarding attorney general’s an discretion in Wenzel are not applicable here. Moreover, just as I believe the regarding requisite

number of signatures and an election are essential and must be included in the statement purpose, I also believe the statements of implication are insufficient because do not set forth aspects these Therefore, CI-98. I dissent from the Court’s conclusion that the statements of meet the 13-27-312(4), of § Where, then, would analysis leave this case if the Court agreed 13-27-316, MCA, with it? Section recognizes potential alteration a court of attorney general’s statement ofpurpose and implication. statements of circumstances, Under different a remand to the District Court with instructions for that court to revise the Attorney General’s Here, statements would appropriate. however, be such a remand-with the possibility of another appeal to this Court-is altogether impractical, given Secretary that the of State must certify the ballot no later than days before an election. See § *11 year, MCA. This that deadline August is Given pressing constraint, time I believe this Court would

have no choice but to rewrite the statements for the ballot measure. Would easy this be an Certainly task? not. Would we all agree-initially-about what should and should not be contained in a factually correct, fair, impartial, easily understood and unprejudiced statement of or in implication? statements of Of course not. vote, by agree, majority But it is the business of this Court to contained every every difficulty agreeing in The of opinion. word Court in language implication-I on a statement and statements challenging daily no than that we face a in posit-is more on basis year. we each issuing opinions in the hundreds of cases decide The unwillingness simply Court’s to undertake such effort here does not generally carry out our comport duty with the manner which we to difficult decide issues. Thus, rewrite the General’s statement of would follows, realizing willing to engage as that-if the Court were certainly majority a language

in this effort-it almost would not be ultimately agree upon. usof would amends

This Constitution and other measure Montana laws electors for recall of Montana petition could reason(s), process and stated an easier judicial than current removal of officers current elected as lack of processes to recall officials reasons such fitness, conviction physical or mental official misconduct or days filed after the felony. petition The could not be before 60 gather specified takes If justice judge petitioners office. district, (statewide, special) signatures, number of an election upon approval. would be held. measure is effective view, in my accurately impartially purpose, This statement of CI-98, is to make melds the context with main which It not recalls of other elected officials-easier. also judicial recalls-but important components substantive the ballot measure explains easily statutory within the objective understood join Court regard, In this the District maximum 100 words. use of the rejecting Appellants’ quarrel Court in words this “any electoral dissatisfaction are “any reason.” The words reason” for text of very taken from CI-98. every does not include I concede offered statement containing a maximum component of CI-98. No

substantive above, concede other do so. As mentioned I also of 100 words could might components of measure of the Court include members I am we could work from I chose include. convinced different those this of the members of Court. majority to the this out satisfaction do, I am always job. surprised our because We safeguard important task unwillingness engage guaranteed by right process to the initiative Montanans’ cherished XTV, III, Montana Constitution. Article 9 of the Article *12 implication of as propose altering I would the statements also follows: amending provide Montana Constitution to for recall

[ ] FOR the any and stated reason justices judges upon state court for of and sufficiently signed petition election. amending the to for AGAINST Montana Constitution

[ ] any stated upon recall of state court for reason sufficiently signed petition and election. view, accurately implications

In true my reflects the again acknowledge While I that other members of this Court CI-98. might disagree my I convinced wording, with exact am we could implication our and craft comporting resolve differences statements of 13-27-312(4), MCA, willing the Court were do so. Finally, willing if the Court were the to rewrite statement CI-98, purpose implication remaining statements of for one issue require would having gathered required resolution: the signatures legally number under insufficient statements of and implication, generad would CI-98 move to the election November ballot, necessary would it signatures, thereby be to invalidate the my CI-98 in its In halting opinion, proceed tracks? CI-98 would general ballot, election following reasons. set forth my recently As in dissent to the opinion issued Montana,

in Over Stop Spending C.J., (Gray, dissenting), I ¶ believe providing initiatives-including overall the statutes relating those statutes court attorney general’s review of an statements-is to afford an opportunity Montana voters the to vote on meeting statutory initiative statements to assist understanding. their I stated therein I did also not believe the Legislature attorney general power intended to vest with such then, could he or she write biased inaccurate statements when rejected statements, play a court those “trump the final card” previously gathered signatures. Stop Spending Over invalidating Montana, 80. reasons-among For those others-I would have ¶ affirmed district court’s rewrite of the statement of Stop Over rejection signatures” argument. “invalidate Montana, Spending here, I present While would reach the same overall result case Stop Over Montana There, Spending respects.

differs from certain that, I with the agreed district while the General’s clarification, in that statements case warranted correction-or implicitly it-they believed district court characterized did not signatures. Stop Spending Over warrant invalidation of obtained view, my In General’s statement of ¶¶ than that in Stop for CI-98 is less defensible and, therefore, Montana court alteration that statement would However, penalize be more than clarification. would not signatures gathering requisite place number of initiative did so of a spite on the ballot because that I conclude were biased statements words, I do initiative. other not believe the rather, it people signing petition; into statements misled people signed petition despite view that could have circumstances, I discouraged doing them from so. Under these would *13 gathered signatures. previously not invalidate the Finally, entirely speculative arguments State’s that the note the challenge motive, as well its timing Appellants’ reflects bad have done and when arguments about what should not, timely it filed have done it. Like their should and, controlling "suspicious” delay challenge under the statute occurred, part-to look-at proceedings of these I would least Appellants’ filing nearly State’s of its answer a month after complaint. case, that Montana Under the circumstances would hold ballot, clearly path general election provides

law CI-98 by to the General’s statements. Tohold corrections this Court is, view, attorney nearly total general to vest in the otherwise general proceed measures will control ofwhat-and how-initiative Neither the Montana Constitution nor Montana statutes election. contemplate such a result. Court, District I dissent from the Court’s failures to reverse the CI-98,

rewrite the statements general election ballot in a permit CI-98 to on November appear people for a of Montana. fair and manner vote