No. 14390 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

19 79 

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 ---- ;jg 
Mr. 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 ordinance was unconstitutional. We 

af firm. 

The basic facts in this case are not in dispute. On May 

2, 1977, the Anaconda-Deer Lodge local government charter 

became effective. The charter provided that the unified 

county government would be run by a five man board of 

commissioners and a professional city-county manager. 

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 forms of gambling within the 

borders of Deer Lodge County. 

The Board of Commissioners, not certain that the 

proposed ordinance would be valid as submitted, initiated a 

declaratory judgment action in the District Court, Deer 

Lodge County, seeking a declaration on the validity and 

constitutionality of 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 is whether the electorate of a 

local government unit may initiate a gambling ordinance 

which is more liberal than statewide gambling laws. 
The main controversy is the meaning to be attached to 

the term "the people" as it appears in 1972 Mont. 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." (Emphasis added.) 

The District Court held that the term is synonymous 

with the voters 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). 

The meaning attached to the term "the people" 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 local government unit, the voters of Deer Lodge County 

must be allowed to vote on the proposed gambling ordinance. 

The interpretation urged by defendant Lorello would 

lead to absurd results, and this cannot be a rational 

interpretation of the Constitution. Ronish v. School Dist. 

No. 1 (1960), 136 Mont. 453, 348 P.2d 797. 

The framers used the term "the people" as a shorthand 

reference to the citizens of the entire State of Montana. We 

find support for such interpretation by reference 

other portions of our constitution. For example, the 

following language appears in the Preamble to our Constitution: 

"We the people of Montana grateful to God 

for the quiet beauty of our state, the 

grandeur of our mountains, the vastness 

of our rolling plains, 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." 

(Emphasis added.) 
In addition to its use 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 framers were 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 

simply was not intended. 

We hold that the legislature or "the people" 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 forbidden by 1972 Mont. Const. Art. 

111, 59. 

Having disposed of the merits of the case, we note 

that this case demonstrates a serious problem facing this 

Court: the frivolous appeal. 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 judgment before undertaking an appeal. 

The judgment of the 

We Concur: 

----------- 

Justices v 

-4-