HELENA, Mont. (Legal Newsline) - The Montana Supreme Court upheld an injunction blocking a statewide referendum that could have replaced statewide voting for court justices to a district-by-district process. The measure would have disenfranchised voters by limiting their power to elect more than one of seven justices, the court ruled.
Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen challenged the injunction, saying the Montana Constitution allowed legislators to change voting procedures either through statutes or by statewide referendum. But the Supreme Court, citing its 2012 decision rejecting an almost identical ballot measure, ruled that allowing an unconstitutional measure to go to a vote would be a senseless “waste of time and money for all involved.”
The League of Women Voters and other organizations fought HB 325, saying it was an illegal attempt to change the constitutional structure of the judiciary branch. The measure would have split the state into seven Supreme Court districts, with one justice elected from each. The court’s chief justice would then be elected by seven justices.
The measure was almost identical to one the court rejected in Reichert v. McCulloch, in part because it would've transformed a statewide institution into one with more regional interests. Jacobsen urged the court to overrule Reichert, as well as asked the justices to recuse themselves from a case involving how they and their successors would be elected. The majority opinion, by Justice Mike McGrath, rejected all of the state’s arguments.
“The implications are not merely philosophical,” the court said, because the Supreme Court has statewide appellate jurisdiction and supervises how all the lower courts operate.
“HB 325 would deny Montana voters a say in the identity of six out of the seven individuals responsible for such weighty decisions affecting their lives,” the court ruled. “Our 2012 Reichert precedent is squarely on-point and should, barring a rare departure from the doctrine of stare decisis, be controlling here. The requirements and protections of the Constitution and the law do not vary from one county or district to another.”
Justice Beth Baker dissented, joined by Justice Jim Rice, saying the case wasn’t ready for review. Unlike the previous ballot measure, this one wouldn’t affect elections until 2024, she wrote. The ballot measure in Reichert was clearly unconstitutional, she went on, because the district residency requirement conflicted with qualifications laid out in the state Constitution.
“In an ironic turn, the Court denies Montanans the right to vote so that they cannot be denied the right to vote,” she wrote. “We should let the process run its course before putting the Court’s own thumb on the scale.”