Brown v. Gianforte

• Decision Date: 10 June 2021
• Docket Number: OP 21-0125
• Citation: 2021 MT 149,404 Mont. 269,488 P.3d 548
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: Bob BROWN, Dorothy Bradley, Vernon Finley, Mae Nan Ellingson, and The League of Women Voters of Montana, Petitioners, v. Greg GIANFORTE, Governor of Montana, Respondent, and Montana State Legislature, Intervenor and Respondent.

404 Mont. 269

488 P.3d 548

2021 MT 149

Bob BROWN, Dorothy Bradley, Vernon Finley, Mae Nan Ellingson, and The League of Women Voters of Montana, Petitioners,

v. Greg GIANFORTE, Governor of Montana, Respondent,andMontana State Legislature, Intervenor and Respondent.

OP 21-0125

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: May 12, 2021

Decided: June 10, 2021

For Petitioners: A. Clifford Edwards, Edwards & Culver, Billings, Montana, James H. Goetz, Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes, P.C., Bozeman, Montana

For Respondent: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, David M.S. Dewhirst, Solicitor General, J. Stuart Segrest, Civil Bureau Chief, Aislinn W. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Anita Milanovich, Office of the Montana Governor, Helena, Montana

For Intervenor: Emily Jones, Talia G. Damrow, Jones Law Firm, PLLC, Billings, Montana

For Amicus Montana Trial Lawyers Association: Colin Gerstner, Gerstner Adam Law PLLC, Billings, Montana, Seamus Molloy, Knight Nicastro Mackay, Missoula, Montana

For Amicus Montana Defense Trial Lawyers: Sean Goicoechea, Moore, Cockrell, Goicoechea & Johnson, P.C., Kalispell, Montana

For Amicus Mountain States Legal Foundation: Cody J. Wisniewski, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, Colorado

For Amicus Montana Family Foundation: Jon Metropoulos, Metropoulos Law Firm, Helena, Montana, KD Feedback, Toole & Feedback, PLLC, Lincoln, Montana

Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 In this original proceeding, Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Senate Bill 140 ("SB 140"), a bill passed by the 2021 Montana Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. SB 140 abolishes Montana's Judicial Nomination Commission and the process that had previously been in place to screen applicants for vacancies on the Supreme Court and the District Courts and replaced it with a process by which any person who otherwise satisfies the eligibility requirements for a Supreme Court Justice or District Court Judge can be considered for appointment by the Governor provided they obtain letters of support from three Montana adults.

¶2 We address the following issues:

Issue One: Do the Petitioners have standing to challenge the constitutionality of SB 140?

Issue Two: Whether urgency or emergency factors justify an original proceeding in this Court pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(4) ?

Issue Three: Does SB 140 violate Article VII, Section 8(2) of the Montana Constitution ?¹

¶3 We conclude the Petitioners have standing to challenge the constitutionality of SB 140, and that urgent or emergency factors justify an original proceeding in this Court. We therefore grant the petition for writ and assume original jurisdiction over Petitioners’ constitutional challenge. We conclude that SB 140 does not violate Article VII, Section 8(2) of the Montana Constitution.

BACKGROUND

¶4 The original Montana Constitution of 1889 provided that in case of a vacancy on the Supreme Court, or any of the District Courts, the vacancy "shall be filled by appointment, by the governor of the State." Mont. Const. art. VIII, § 34 (1889). This procedure was changed by ratification of the 1972 Constitution, which provided that in case of judicial vacancies, the Governor would appoint a replacement from nominees selected in a manner provided by law. Mont. Const. art. VII, § 8.

¶5 Pursuant to the newly ratified Constitution, the 1973 Legislature passed Senate Bill 28 ("SB 28"), which was codified at § 3-1-1001, MCA, et seq., and provided for the creation of a "Judicial Nomination Commission." The Commission was composed of seven members, appointed to staggered four-year terms: four lay members were appointed by the Governor, two attorney members were appointed by the Supreme Court, and the final member was a sitting district court judge. The procedure enacted by SB 28 provided that when there was a judicial vacancy, any individual who satisfied the constitutional requirements to serve as a Supreme Court Justice or District Court Judge could submit an application to the Commission for that position. After a public comment period, the Commission would then screen the applicants and forward a list of three to five nominees from which the Governor could appoint a replacement to fill the vacancy. The appointee would then stand for election at the next election and, if elected, for all subsequent elections in the regular course. Depending on the timing of the appointment, the appointee may also be subject to Senate confirmation.²

¶6 The commission system enacted in 1973 remained the procedure for filling judicial vacancies until this year, when the 2021 Legislature passed SB 140. SB 140 abolished the Judicial Nomination Commission and replaced it with a procedure by which any individual who otherwise satisfies the constitutional requirements to serve as a Supreme Court Justice or District Court Judge may apply directly to the Governor. After a public comment period, the Governor may appoint any applicant who has received a letter of support from at least three Montana adults. As with the previous system, the appointee would then stand for election at the next election and, if elected, for all subsequent elections in the regular course and, depending on the timing of the appointment, the appointee may also be subject to Senate confirmation.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶7 The determination of a party's standing is a question of law that we review de novo. Cmty. Ass'n for N. Shore Conservation, Inc. v. Flathead Cty. , 2019 MT 147, ¶ 18, 396 Mont. 194, 445 P.3d 1195. We exercise plenary review over matters of constitutional interpretation. Nelson v. City of Billings , 2018 MT 36, ¶ 8, 390 Mont. 290, 412 P.3d 1058.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Issue One: Do the Petitioners have standing to challenge the constitutionality of SB 140?

¶9 "Standing is a threshold jurisdictional requirement that limits Montana courts to deciding only cases or controversies (case-or-controversy standing) within judicially created prudential limitations (prudential standing).... Case-or-controversy standing limits the courts to deciding actual, redressable controversy, while prudential standing confines the courts to a role consistent with the separation of powers." Bullock v. Fox , 2019 MT 50, ¶ 28, 395 Mont. 35, 435 P.3d 1187 (citations omitted).

¶10 In order to establish case-or-controversy standing, Petitioners must "clearly allege past, present, or threatened injury to a property or civil right." Bullock , ¶ 31. The question is not whether the issue itself is justiciable, but whether the Petitioners are the proper party to seek redress in this controversy. In that regard, the injury Petitioners allege must be "concrete, meaning actual or imminent, and not abstract, conjectural, or hypothetical; redressable; and distinguishable from injury to the public generally." Bullock , ¶ 31.

¶11 The individual Petitioners in this case are all Montana residents, voters, and taxpayers. Petitioners cite a number of cases in which this Court has found standing in cases involving constitutional challenges based on purported violations of Article VII: Committee for an Effective Judiciary v. State , 209 Mont. 105, 679 P.2d 1223 (1984) ; Jones v. Judge , 176 Mont. 251, 577 P.2d 846 (1978) ; Keller v. Smith , 170 Mont. 399, 401, 553 P.2d 1002, 1004 (1976) ; Yunker v. Murray , 170 Mont. 427, 554 P.2d 285 (1976) ; Reichert v. State ex rel. McCulloch , 2012 MT 111, 365 Mont. 92, 278 P.3d 455. In all of these cases, Petitioners note, this Court has found standing based on the challenging parties’ status as electors, citizens, and/or taxpayers.

¶12 Respondents respond that the individual Petitioners’ status as Montana residents, voters, and taxpayers is insufficient to confer standing in this case. The Governor argues that the cases cited by Petitioners are distinguishable from the present case because "SB 140 has nothing to do with judicial elections, unlike those challenges to judicial election laws where this Court has accepted original jurisdiction." Similarly, the Legislature argues that the individual Petitioners’ status as Montana residents and voters is insufficient because "[v]oters have no right to select nominees for appointment to judicial vacancies or to determine how nominees are selected."

¶13 Respondents are correct that SB 140 has nothing to do with judicial elections. It does, however, have to do with the process by which judicial vacancies are filled. Critical to the constitutionality of that process is the manner by which the nominees are selected to fill that vacancy. Among other criteria, SB 140 provides that in order to be considered a nominee for a judicial vacancy, an applicant must "receive[ ] a letter of support from at least three adult Montana residents by the close of the public comment period." While the Legislature may be correct that "[v]oters have no right to ... determine how [judicial] nominees are selected" (emphasis added), in fact all adult Montana residents, regardless of their voter registration status, are integral to the process of determining how judicial nominees are selected.

¶14 Moreover, if we were to hold SB 140 unconstitutional, a judge appointed pursuant to its provisions would not be vested with judicial power and therefore would not be a judge at all. This Court has addressed judicial appointments in a number of previous cases; our reasoning and analysis of those matters is instructive here. In Blodgett v. Orzech , 2012 MT 134, 365 Mont. 290, 280 P.3d 904, we considered whether a substitute justice of the peace was properly appointed according to statute and able to oversee a trial. In Potter v. Dist. Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Dist. , 266 Mont. 384, 880 P.2d 1319 (1994), we considered whether a substitute justice of the peace was properly appointed and thus able to issue search warrants. And in Pinnow v. Mont. State Fund , 2007 MT 332, 340 Mont. 217, 172 P.3d 1273, we considered the substitution of a district court judge for a Worker's...