Background
After Montana’s 2023 Legislature revised the laws governing statewide ballot measures, a group of plaintiffs challenged eleven provisions as unconstitutional impairments of the people’s initiative and referendum powers. The District Court invalidated four provisions, and the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their remaining claims.
The invalidated provisions prohibited resubmitting a substantially similar measure for four years after voters rejected it; allowed legislative committees to vote on proposed measures and place their position on initiative petitions; imposed a $3,700 filing fee; and authorized the Attorney General to review a proposal’s “substantive legality.” The State appealed the rulings concerning the first three provisions but did not appeal the substantive-legality ruling. The plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees under the Private Attorney General Doctrine.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutional rulings. It held that the Montana Constitution reserves initiative and referendum powers to the people as a lawmaking authority equal to the Legislature’s. Although the Legislature may adopt neutral rules that make the process orderly and workable or protect it from abuse, it may not add conditions beyond those imposed by the Constitution, materially burden the people’s independent lawmaking power, or inject legislative policy preferences into proposed measures.
Applying that standard, the Court upheld the invalidation of the four-year resubmission ban, the legislative-committee vote and petition-label requirement, and the $3,700 filing fee. The fourth provision, concerning the Attorney General’s substantive-legality review, remained invalid because the State did not appeal that ruling.
In a divided ruling, the Court also affirmed the denial of attorney fees. The majority concluded that, although the plaintiffs vindicated important constitutional interests, they had not shown that the burden of the litigation was sufficiently substantial to require a fee award under the narrowly applied Private Attorney General Doctrine. Three justices dissented from the fee ruling, reasoning that the District Court should have considered whether work on dismissed claims also contributed to the successful claims.
Key Takeaways
- Montana’s initiative and referendum powers belong directly to the people and are equal in status to the Legislature’s lawmaking authority.
- The Legislature may administer the ballot-measure process, but it may not impose material burdens, add constitutional prerequisites, or place its policy judgment on initiative petitions.
- Success in constitutional litigation does not automatically entitle plaintiffs to attorney fees under Montana’s Private Attorney General Doctrine.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces strong constitutional protection for direct democracy in Montana and limits the Legislature’s ability to create financial, procedural, or political barriers to citizen-sponsored ballot measures. Courts must resolve doubts about such restrictions in favor of the people’s reserved lawmaking power.
The divided fee ruling also signals that plaintiffs who successfully challenge unconstitutional statutes must independently establish that the burden of litigation justifies shifting their fees to the State.