Case Law Mont. Democratic Party v. State

Mont. Democratic Party v. State

Document Cited Authorities (15) Cited in (10) Related

For Appellant: Matthew T. Meade, Smith Oblander & Meade, PC, Great Falls, Montana Austin James, Chief Legal Counsel, Secretary of State's Office, Helena, Montana

For Appellees: Peter Michael Meloy, Meloy Law Firm, Helena, Montana Matthew Gordon, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington

For Amicus Curiae Montana Republican Party: Anita Y. Milanovich, Milanovich Law, PLLC, Butte, Montana Emily Jones, Talia G. Damrow, Jones Law Firm, PLLC, Billings, Montana

For Amici Curiae Lorrie Campbell and Jill Loven: Chris J. Gallus, Gallus Law, Helena, Montana Edward D. Greim, Graves Garrett, LLC, Kansas City, Missouri

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 The State of Montana, by and through its Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (the "Secretary") appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. The District Court concluded the petition seeking to qualify the Montana Green Party to hold a primary election to select its nominees for office and to obtain ballot access for those nominees for the November 2020 general election failed to meet the requirements of § 13-10-601(2), MCA, and enjoined the Secretary and all persons acting under his authority from giving any effect to the petition. In accordance with our August 19, 2020 Order, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In late January 2020, over twenty petition circulators began to collect signatures for a petition seeking to qualify the Montana Green Party to hold a primary election to select its nominees for office and obtain ballot access for those nominees in the 2020 general election. In mid-February, Montana Green Party leadership disclaimed the petition, and publicly stated the Montana Green Party was not involved in the petition effort. It was unclear at that time who was organizing and funding the signature gathering. In response, the Montana Democratic Party organized a countereffort, reaching out to petition signers and encouraging them to withdraw their signatures from the petition because an unknown group was organizing and funding the effort. On or before March 6, around 150 petition signers, including plaintiffs Taylor Blossom and Rebecca Weed, asked for their names to be removed from the petition. On March 6, the Secretary completed the tabulation of submitted signatures and announced the Montana Green Party had been qualified for the primary election through the petition process. Shortly before the primary election, Montana Green Party leadership publicly disclaimed the candidates running under its banner in the primary.

¶3 On March 24, news reports widely broadcast that the petition had been sponsored and organized by the Montana Republican Party. The Montana Republican Party Central Committee had contracted with the petition gathering firm Advanced Micro Targeting to gather the signatures for the petition. The expenditure was credited as an in-kind contribution to "Montanans for Conservation" on financial disclosures. Montanans for Conservation filed as an independent committee with the Commission on Political Practice in January 2020, rather than as a minor party qualification committee pursuant to § 13-37-602, MCA. Its status was not changed to a minor party qualification committee until March 23. The Montana Republican Party is the sole contributor to Montanans for Conservation.

¶4 After these news reports, the Montana Democratic Party redoubled its efforts to contact petition signers to educate them as to the who funded the petition effort, the Montana Green Party's disavowal of the petition and the candidates purported to be running under its party designation, and encourage them to withdraw their signatures based on this information. Following these efforts, hundreds of petition signers requested to withdraw their signatures from the petition between March 6 and June 2—the day of the primary election. Many of the withdrawal requests were submitted with an electronic signature. The Secretary declined to honor requests submitted after March 6—the day the Secretary's office completed statewide tabulation of the petition signatures.

¶5 The Montana Democratic Party and four petitioner signers who asked to have their signatures removed from the petition sued the Secretary, seeking an injunction to prevent the Secretary and his office from giving effect to the petition. The Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that "the Montana Green Party had absolutely nothing to do with the Petition" and sought declaratory relief that the petition failed to meet the requirements of § 13-10-601, MCA.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6 We review a district court's conclusions and applications of law for correctness. Larson v. Stapleton ex rel. State , 2019 MT 28, ¶ 16, 394 Mont. 167, 434 P.3d 241. We review its findings of fact for clear error. Larson , ¶ 16. We review the grant of injunctive relief for a manifest abuse of discretion. Larson , ¶ 16. "We will affirm the district court when it reaches the right result, even if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason." Talbot v. WMK-Davis, LLC , 2016 MT 247, ¶ 6, 385 Mont. 109, 380 P.3d 823 (internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

¶7 The plaintiffs raised various grounds to challenge the validity of the petition before the District Court, including challenges to the Secretary's refusal to honor withdrawal requests submitted after March 6 and refusal to accept withdrawal requests signed electronically. The District Court thoroughly considered all issues raised and issued a detailed order. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the petition did not meet the requirements of § 13-10-601(2), MCA, and enjoined the Secretary and those acting under his authority from giving it any effect. The Secretary challenges various conclusions of the District Court on appeal. We decline to address the contentions of the Secretary, however, because the findings of fact of the District Court unchallenged on appeal are dispositive.

¶8 Section 13-10-601(2)(a), MCA, provides: "A political party that does not qualify to hold a primary election under subsection (1) may qualify to nominate its candidates by primary election by presenting a petition, in a form prescribed by the secretary of state, requesting the primary election." (Emphasis added.) This section is clear who must present the petition: the political party seeking to nominate its candidates by primary election. The petition at issue in this case does not meet the most basic requirement of § 13-10-601(2), MCA : the political party seeking qualification through a petition must present the petition requesting the primary election.

¶9 The District Court found the Montana Republican Party sponsored and organized the petition and the evidence before the court demonstrated "the Montana Green Party disavowed the signature gathering process and has also disavowed the persons filing under the Green Party banner as not being true Green Party members or adherents."1 These findings—undisputed before the District Court and unchallenged on appeal—are sufficient to support the District Court's conclusion the petition fails to satisfy the requirements of § 13-10-601(2), MCA, and the injunction enjoining the Secretary and all persons acting under his authority from implementing or giving any effect to the petition. Under the facts of this case as presented to the District Court and unchallenged on appeal, it is clear the Montana Green Party did not present the petition requesting a primary election to nominate its candidates for the general election. The Secretary was without statutory authority to accept the petition at issue in this case, which was not presented, endorsed, or sponsored by the Montana Green Party at the time of the signature gathering and the submission of the petition to the election administrators of the counties where the signatures were gathered.2 See § 13-10-601(2)(a), (c), MCA.

¶10 Given the facts of this case as presented to the District Court, Montanans for Conservation could not present the petition to election administrators to qualify the Montana Green Party under § 13-10-601(2), MCA. Under § 13-10-601, MCA, a political party may qualify to nominate its candidates for the general election through a state-sponsored primary in one of two ways: under subsection (1) by having a candidate for statewide office in either of the last two general elections receive a total vote equal to five percent or more of the total votes cast for the most recent successful candidate for governor; or under subsection (2) by presenting a petition requesting a primary election that is signed by a sufficient number of registered voters. "[A] political party that does not qualify to hold a primary election under [§] 13-10-601(1)[, MCA ]" is a "minor political party." See § 13-37-601(4), MCA. A "minor party qualification committee" is "a combination of two of more individuals or a person other than an individual organized in furtherance of an effort to qualify a minor political party for primary elections using a minor party petition." See § 13-37-601(6), MCA (emphasis added). Montanans for Conservation originally registered as an independent committee pursuant to § 13-1-101(24), MCA, but was later recharacterized as a minor party qualification committee under § 13-37-601(6), MCA. Nothing in the language of § 13-1-101(24), MCA, § 13-37-601(6), MCA, or § 13-10-601(2), MCA, however, authorizes an independent committee or a minor party qualification committee to present a petition to election administrators to qualify a minor political pa...

4 cases
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2022
Meyer v. Jacobsen
"...IV, § 3. "Subject to constitutional protections, the election process is purely statutory." Mont. Democratic Party v. State , 2020 MT 244, ¶ 23, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195 (Baker, J., dissenting).¶22 Title 13, chapter 10, part 5, MCA, governs the method of nomination for candidates not el..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2022
Netzer Law Office, P.C. v. State
"...right constitutes harm or irreparable injury for the purposes of issuing a preliminary injunction. Mont. Democratic Party v. State , 2020 MT 244, ¶ 15, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195 ; see Driscoll , ¶¶ 20, 24-25 (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining legi..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2024
Johnston v. Flying S Title & Escrow, Inc.
"...court when it reaches the right result, even if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason." Mont. Democratic Party v. State, 2020 MT 244, ¶ 6, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195. DISCUSSION ¶15 Did the District Court err by concluding that Flying S is not contractually liable to Appellants..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2024
Johnston v. Flying S Title & Escrow, Inc.
"...court when it reaches the right result, even if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason." Mont Democratic Party v. State, 2020 MT 244, ¶ 6, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195. DISCUSSION ¶15 Did the District Court err by concluding that Flying S is not contractually liable to Appellants ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2022
Meyer v. Jacobsen
"...IV, § 3. "Subject to constitutional protections, the election process is purely statutory." Mont. Democratic Party v. State , 2020 MT 244, ¶ 23, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195 (Baker, J., dissenting).¶22 Title 13, chapter 10, part 5, MCA, governs the method of nomination for candidates not el..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2022
Netzer Law Office, P.C. v. State
"...right constitutes harm or irreparable injury for the purposes of issuing a preliminary injunction. Mont. Democratic Party v. State , 2020 MT 244, ¶ 15, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195 ; see Driscoll , ¶¶ 20, 24-25 (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining legi..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2024
Johnston v. Flying S Title & Escrow, Inc.
"...court when it reaches the right result, even if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason." Mont. Democratic Party v. State, 2020 MT 244, ¶ 6, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195. DISCUSSION ¶15 Did the District Court err by concluding that Flying S is not contractually liable to Appellants..."
Document | Montana Supreme Court – 2024
Johnston v. Flying S Title & Escrow, Inc.
"...court when it reaches the right result, even if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason." Mont Democratic Party v. State, 2020 MT 244, ¶ 6, 401 Mont. 390, 472 P.3d 1195. DISCUSSION ¶15 Did the District Court err by concluding that Flying S is not contractually liable to Appellants ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex