MAE NAN ELLINGSON, JEROME LOENDORF, ARLYNE REICHERT, HAL HARPER, BOB BROWN, EVAN BARRETT, C.B. PEARSON, CAROLE MACKIN, MARK MACKIN, and JONATHAN MOTL, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, GREG GIANFORTE, Governor of the State of Montana, AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Montana Attorney General, CHRISTI JACOBSEN, Secretary of State, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees

MAE NAN ELLINGSON, JEROME LOENDORF, ARLYNE REICHERT, HAL HARPER, BOB BROWN, EVAN BARRETT, C.B. PEARSON, CAROLE MACKIN, MARK MACKIN, and JONATHAN MOTL, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, GREG GIANFORTE, Governor of the State of Montana, AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Montana Attorney General, CHRISTI JACOBSEN, Secretary of State, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Friday, April 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m. Senate Bill 93, enacted in 2023, made several revisions to the laws governing citizens’ preparation and submission of statewide ballot issues. A group of Montana citizens (Plaintiffs) filed a legal challenge to eleven of SB 93’s revisions, arguing the changes infringe upon Montanans’ constitutional powers of initiative and referendum. The District Court agreed with Plaintiffs regarding four of the revisions they challenged but declined to award Plaintiffs their attorney fees. The Plaintiffs’ remaining claims were dismissed. On appeal, the State argues that when a court is asked to consider the constitutionality of a law regulating the citizen initiative and referendum process, it should determine whether the requirements facilitate or impede Montanans’ initiative and referendum power. The State contends that the District Court instead wrongly analyzed the constitutionality of the challenged provisions by considering whether the ballot issue requirements exist on “equal footing” with the process the Legislature requires for its own bills. On the merits, the State challenges the District Court’s rulings striking down the following provisions from SB 93: a $3,700 required filing fee for initiating the ballot issue process, which the Secretary of State may waive on a showing of hardship; a four-year bar on filing a ballot initiative that is substantially the same as a measure defeated by the voters; and a provision calling for a legislative committee to vote on a proposed initiative’s merits and place the results of the vote on the ballot petition. Plaintiffs have cross-appealed, arguing the District Court erred in denying their request for attorney fees.

No filings indexed yet.