Former lawmakers sue over Supreme Court election changes

Personal Injury

A lawsuit has been filed to challenge a legislative proposal to change the way Supreme Court justices would be elected in Montana.

A Roman Catholic nun, a former court clerk and three former state lawmakers are among those challenging the constitutionality of a bill the legislature passed to ask Montana voters if they want to elect Supreme Court justices by district, rather than on a statewide basis.

The complaint, filed on May 6 in Butte, asks District Judge Kurt Krueger to declare the bill unconstitutional and to prevent Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen from certifying the referendum for the November 2022 ballot.

“The office of the Secretary of State has not received service of any legal documents related to the alleged lawsuit, and thus is unable to comment,” spokesperson Richie Melby said in a statement.

The 2021 bill is similar to one passed a decade earlier that sought to divide the state into seven judicial districts, with each district electing one Supreme Court justice from that district. The Montana Supreme Court found the 2011 law unconstitutional because, in part, it would create new qualifications for the office of Supreme Court justice.

This year’s proposal would not require candidates to live in specific districts, but would only allow residents of each district to vote in one judicial race. That would eliminate the right of all Montana voters to select all seven justices of the Supreme Court, the complaint states.

In the case of the 2011 bill, the Montana Supreme Court found the language and structure of the state constitution requires the election of Supreme Court justices on a statewide basis while District Court judges would be elected by district-specific basis.

Ethical rules do not permit judges to “represent” particular constituencies or interest groups, the Supreme Court wrote in 2012.

The complaint also argues the bill is an effort to change the state constitution via referendum, rather than through a constitutional referendum. A constitutional referendum would have needed a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to be put on the ballot. The bill passed 94-55 over both houses, six votes short of a two-thirds majority.

The plaintiffs are Sister Mary Jo McDonald, former District Court clerk Lori Maloney and former Democratic Rep. Fritz Daily ? all of Butte ? along with former lawmakers Bob Brown and Dorothy Bradley; Mae Nan Ellingson, a delegate to Montana’s 1972 Constitutional Convention; Vernon Finley, a former chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Tribal Council; and the League of Women voters.

Brown, Bradley, Ellingson, Finley and the League of Women Voters are plaintiffs in another complaint challenging a new law that eliminates the Judicial Nomination Commission and allows the governor to directly fill judicial vacancies that occur between elections.

Related listings

  • Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place

    Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place

    Personal Injury 12/02/2019

    The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions. The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. Enfo...

  • Court denies attempt led by Ohio to stop opioid trial

    Court denies attempt led by Ohio to stop opioid trial

    Personal Injury 10/10/2019

    A federal appeals court has denied an effort led by Ohio's attorney general to stop a bellwether trial over the opioid crisis from starting this month in Cleveland.The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Ohio didn't object when laws...

  •  Supreme Court wrestles with case on detention of immigrants

    Supreme Court wrestles with case on detention of immigrants

    Personal Injury 10/11/2018

    The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a case about the government’s ability to detain certain immigrants after they’ve served sentences for committing crimes in the United States. Several justices expressed concerns with the governmen...

USCIS to Begin Accepting Applications under the International Entrepreneur Rule

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it is taking steps to implement the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), in accordance with a recent court decision. Although the IER was published during the previous administration with an effective date of July 17, 2017, it did not take effect because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule on July 11, 2017, delaying the IER’s effective date until March 14, 2018. This delay rule was meant to give USCIS time to review the IER and, if necessary, to issue a rule proposing to remove the IER program regulations.

However, a Dec. 1, 2017, ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Venture Capital Association v. Duke vacated USCIS’ final rule to delay the effective date. The Dec. 1, 2017, court decision is a result of litigation filed in district court on Sept. 19, 2017, which challenged the delay rule.

Business News

Eugene, OR Criminal Defense DUII Attorney MJM Law Office was founded to provide clients with representation in Criminal Defense. >> read