Montana high court blocks AG edits to nonpartisan judicial elections initiative

(CN) — An initiative calling for nonpartisan judicial elections to be enshrined in the Montana Constitution will retain its original ballot description, the state’s high court ruled on Thursday.If passed, Constitutional Initiative 131 would amend the Montana Constitution to make judicial elections nonpartisan nonpartisan. Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges submitted the proposed initiative over the summer with a proposed ballot statement.“This constitutional initiative would require that Montana Supreme Court and district court elections remain nonpartisan,” the original ballot statement read. “Since 1935, state law has required that these elections be held without political party affiliation. This amendment would add that rule to the Montana Constitution, so it could only be changed by another constitutional amendment approved by voters.”In September, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen revised the statement, clarifying that a nonpartisan election prohibits listing candidates according to their political party, including labels like independent. He said the change was made to “improve readability, explain that [the initiative] imposes a new constitutional requirement and the practical implication to voters on seeing a nonpartisan ballot versus a partisan ballot.”Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges joined forces with Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts to challenge Knudsen’s rewrite.The Montana Supreme Court found that Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts lacked standing to join the challenge since it isn’t a proponent of the ballot initiative.However, the high court did find that Knudsen didn’t properly determine, in writing, that the original proposed statement failed to comply with the rules governing ballot statements.“The issue is not whether the attorney general correctly concluded [Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges’] proposed statement failed to meet the requirements of § 13-27-226(3)(a), MCA, but whether the attorney general made that conclusion at all,” Montana Supreme Court Justice Katherine Bidegaray wrote in the order.“We have held this court will not invalidate a ballot statement simply because a better one could be written,” she added. “Similarly, the attorney general’s statutory authority does not extend to improving or explaining ballot initiatives if the proponent’s proposed statement of purpose and implication is not statutorily deficient.”Under Montana law, ballot purpose statements must express the true and impartial explanation of the proposal in plain language and cannot be argumentative or written in a way that creates prejudice for or against the issue.The court noted that “aside from a conclusory statement that [Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges’] proposed statement ‘fails to comply,’” Knudsen didn’t explain why he rejected the original statement.Knudsen’s justification for submitting a revised statement didn’t contend that the original statement failed to express the true and impartial explanation of the initiative, Bidegaray wrote.In his legal sufficiency memo, Knudsen claimed that he rewrote the statement to improve and explain it, but in his response to the group’s petition in court he argued that the original statement “subtly prejudices the issue.” The court found that critique fell short of the statutory requirements.“More importantly, however, he offered no basis at the time he rejected [the group’s] proposed statement,” Bidegaray wrote. “A mere declaration of noncompliance, without articulating how the proposed statement is inaccurate, unclear, argumentative, or prejudicial, does not constitute the predicate written determination the statute requires.”Knudsen recognized that Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges hadn’t waived its right to challenge his revised statement, but argued that the Supreme Court should consider the fact that the group initially accepted the revised statement.The high court determined that the group’s original proposed statement satisfied the statutory requirements and certified the ballot statement to the Secretary of State.This is the second order from the Montana Supreme Court rejecting Knudsen’s revisions to proposed ballot statements. In November, the state’s high court blocked another rewrite of a similar but broader measure, Constitutional Initiative 132.Constitutional Initiative 132 calls for a new section of the constitution to mandate that all court elections stay free from political affiliations. Constitutional Initiative 131 applies only to district and state supreme court judges.Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts submitted Constitutional Initiative 132 with proposed ballot language stating that the initiative “amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.”Knudsen revised the statement to instead say the initiative, if passed, “amends Article VII of the Montana Constitution to create a new Section 12 that mandates all judicial elections be nonpartisan. A nonpartisan election prohibits labeling candidates on the ballot according to the political party the candidate aligns with including labels like independent.”The Supreme Court likewise found that Knudsen took too much liberty in editing the ballot language.Neither Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges nor the Montana Attorney General’s Office responded to a request for comment before press time.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads

Read Full Article: https://www.courthousenews.com/montana-high-court-blocks-ag-edits-to-nonpartisan-judicial-elections-initiative/