No. 14390 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979

ANACONDA-DEER LODGE COUNTY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vsPETER J. LORELLO et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Scanlon & Connors,Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Radonich & Brolin, Anaconda, Montana

Submitted on briefs: January 24, 1979 Decided: I'

# t$fn

Filed: f 

## ---- ;jgMr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Peter J. Lorello,defendant, appeals from a declaratory judgment of the Deer Lodge County ~istrict Court holding that a proposed gambling ordinancewas unconstitutional. We af firm. The basic facts in this case are not in dispute. On May 2, 1977,theAnaconda-Deer Lodge local government charter became effective. The charter provided that the unified county government would be run by a fiveman board of commissioners and a professional city-countymanager. On July 13, 1977, Peter J. Lorello and approximately fifteen percent of the qualified electors of Deer Lodge County submitted a proposed gambling ordinance to the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Board of Commissioners. Lorello's group requested that the Board present the proposed gambling ordinance to the voters of Deer Lodge County at the next general election. The ordinance in question, if approved by the voters,would legalize all formsof gambling within the borders of Deer Lodge County. The Board of Commissioners,not certain that the proposed ordinancewould be valid as submitted, initiated a declaratory judgment action in the District Court, Deer Lodge County, seeking a declaration on the validity and constitutionalityof the proposed ordinance. The trial judge ruled that the proposed ordinance was invalid,unconstitutional,and that the proposed ordinance could not be submitted to the Deer Lodge County electorate. This appeal followed. The sole issue on appeal iswhether the electorate of a localgovernment unit may initiate a gambling ordinance which ismore liberal than statewide gambling laws.Themain controversy is the meaning to be attached to the term "thepeople" as it appears in 1972Mont. Const. Art. 111, 59. The section states: "All forms of gambling, lotteries,and gift enterprises are prohibited unless authorized bv acts of the lesislature or by 

### - the people through initiative or referendum." (Emphasisadded.) The District Court held that the term is synonymous with thevoters of the entire State of Montana. Defendant Lorello, on the other hand,urges that the term "the people" is general enough to refer to the electors of a local government unit (i.e. the electors of Deer Lodge County). Themeaning attached to the term "thepeople" will be dispositive of this appeal. If the term refers to the electorate of the entire State,the citizens of Deer Lodge County cannot legalize forms of gambling which have not been "authorized"by the legislature or the electorate of the State. Conversely, if the term refers to the voters of

a localgovernment unit, the voters of Deer Lodge County must be allowed to vote on the proposed gambling ordinance. The interpretationurged by defendant Lorello would lead to absurd results, and this cannotbe a rational interpretation of the Constitution. Ronish v. School Dist. No. 1 (1960), 136Mont. 453, 348 P.2d 797. The framersused the term "thepeople" as a shorthand reference to the citizens of the entire State of Montana. We find support for such interpretationby reference otherportions of our constitution. For example, the following language appears in the Preamble to our Constitution:"Wethe people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rollingplains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution."

(Emphasisadded.)In addition to itsuse in the Preamble,the term "the people" appears thirteen times in the first three articles of our Constitution. Wherever the term appears, it is obvious that the framerswere referring to the citizens of Montana as a homogeneous group, and not to an isolated group such as the electors of a local government unit. We would no doubt create absurdities in other portions of the Constitution if we accepted defendant's strained interpretation. It simplywas not intended. We hold that the legislature or "thepeople" of the entire state, are the only two groups empowered to legalize forms of gambling in this State. Any attempt to legalize gambling by any other group (i.e. the electors of Deer Lodge County) is expressly forbiddenby 1972Mont. Const. Art. 111, 59. Having disposed of themerits of the case,we note that this case demonstrates a seriousproblem facing this Court: the frivolousappeal. If cases are appealed as a matter of course,without regard to a good faith analysis of merit, this Court will not be able to avoid a serious backlog in our docket. We urge attorneys to exercise their good faith judgmentbefore undertaking an appeal. The judgment of the

We Concur:



### -----------

Justices 

## v -4-