Remove Supreme Court original jurisdiction for ballot review
Summary
SB 13 would change how Montana handles legal challenges to statewide ballot measures by removing the Montana Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over ballot-statement and petition-sufficiency disputes, except for habeas corpus. Instead, most pre-election challenges to ballot statements, the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determinations, and related petition issues would begin in district court as original proceedings, with expedited review and a path for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The bill also revises the ballot-review process in detail. It allows proponents or opponents of a statewide ballot issue to challenge the attorney general’s approved statements or sufficiency ruling in district court within 10 days, requires quick responses and decisions, and authorizes the district court to order revised ballot statements or void petitions if the issue does not comply with statutory or constitutional requirements. It preserves the ability to challenge constitutional defects in the substance of an enacted ballot measure after voter approval, and it repeals the existing statute that gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over ballot statement review.
Impact
If enacted, SB 13 would significantly shift pre-election ballot litigation from the Montana Supreme Court to district courts, narrowing the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and changing the forum for disputes over ballot language and petition validity. It would amend section 13-27-605, MCA, repeal section 3-2-202, MCA, and create an immediate-effective framework for expedited judicial review of statewide ballot issues, affecting the attorney general, secretary of state, ballot measure sponsors and opponents, and courts handling election-related litigation.
Sentiment
The bill advanced through the Senate with majority support, passing committee and floor votes there, suggesting substantial backing for the proposal in that chamber. However, it encountered stronger resistance in the House, where it was narrowly advanced out of Judiciary but then failed on second reading by a wide margin, indicating that support was not broad enough to sustain the measure through the full legislative process. Overall, the voting pattern suggests a divided response, with proponents favoring a procedural shift in ballot review and opponents unwilling to move away from the existing Supreme Court-centered system.
Contention
The main point of contention is institutional authority: supporters appear to favor moving original review of ballot measures to district court to streamline or reassign pre-election litigation, while opponents likely object to stripping the Supreme Court of its original role in these cases. Another likely dispute is whether the bill would improve efficiency or instead complicate and fragment ballot-measure review by adding another layer of litigation and potential appeals. The House vote, especially the decisive rejection on second reading, indicates that these concerns were significant enough to block final passage.
Campaign finance: violations; authority of the attorney general's office to resolve violations involving the secretary of state; provide for. Amends sec. 15 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.215).
Campaign finance: violations; authority of the attorney general's office to resolve violations involving the secretary of state; provide for. Amends sec. 15 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.215).