This story was originally published by Daily Montanan:
URL: https://dailymontanan.com
This story has not been altered or edited.
(C) Daily Montanan. Licensed for re-distribution through Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
------------



Judge hears arguments on Supreme Court election-by-district initiative – Daily Montanan

['Arren Kimbel-Sannit', 'More From Author', '- January']

Date: 2022-01-27 00:00:00

A district court judge in Bozeman heard arguments this week in a legal challenge to a legislative ballot initiative passed this session that would, if approved by voters, modify state law to provide for the election of Montana Supreme Court justices by district, rather than on an at-large basis.

Plaintiffs including former Montana Secretary of State Bob Brown and 1972 Constitutional Convention delegate Mae Nan Ellingson first filed suit against the initiative referral in May, but the case moved slowly for months as the parties dueled over a motion to replace Second Judicial District Court Judge Kurt Krueger, a matter that eventually went to the state Supreme Court.

Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, with attorneys for the plaintiffs arguing that a 2012 ruling that declared a similar ballot initiative unconstitutional is essentially controlling in this matter, and the state arguing that the suit is an attempt at nullifying a possible change to law before the voters have an opportunity to consider it.

The parties laid out these arguments in a pair of filings in December and rehashed them in court this week, though Judge Peter Ohman did not make a ruling or signal when one might be coming

There’s one major constraint on the timing of the case, the ever-nearing 2022 election. The Montana Secretary of State’s office, which is named as the defendant in the challenge, must approve a voter information pamphlet with details on proposed ballot issues by Aug. 25. And it’s likely the case goes before the state Supreme Court on appeal no matter how the lower court rules, said Jim Goetz, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, so there’s a sense of urgency to the proceedings.

“The bottom line is the Secretary of State has to start taking actions by Aug. 25,” he said.

Proposals can make it to the ballot through a variety of means, including legislative referral, as was the case here. House Bill 325, sponsored by Rep. Barry Usher, a Republican from Yellowstone County, asks the voters to decide whether to change long-standing precedent and begin electing supreme court justices from seven separate districts. The change, if approved, would take effect in 2024.

The plaintiffs argue that the court is bound to view the bill in the same light as a similar measure from a decade earlier, when Justice James Nelson wrote in a majority opinion for the court that “the Constitution intends Supreme Court justices to be elected and serve on a statewide basis.”

Arguments from the state have focused on a key distinction between that 2011 proposal and the present one: The former would have also required judges to be “qualified electors” of the districts where they’re running, a residency requirement not in HB 325. That difference “breaks the link that … the Reichert Court relied on in concluding that (the initiative) unconstitutionally altered the structure of the Supreme Court,” attorneys for the state wrote in Decmeber.

Attorneys for the state Department of Justice have also focused on the fact that the 2011 referral, Senate Bill 268, would have impacted elections taking place the next year, creating a reason for the court to act before voters approved the change. HB 325 would not take effect until 2024.

“This Court lacks jurisdiction to opine on the constitutionality of a potential law,” the state argued in December.

[END]

[1] Url: https://dailymontanan.com/2022/01/27/judge-hears-arguments-on-supreme-court-election-by-district-initiative/

Content is licensed through Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/montanan/