INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 13541
MATTHEW JORDAN, and DANIEL KEMMIS, Petitioners, VS

# . FRANK MURRAY, THE SECRETARY OF STATE and ROBERT WOODAHL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents.
- and 

# y~aa.z$ 

# 3'-/LGfn.igy THE "NO ON INITIATIVE 71COMMITTEE", CLLh;;: : ,: Gli:pp~,fi~ 

### c

# -
, siPi-8c :>gs.r:"; y*'",* an unincaporated association, and EDWARD KEIL, C. R. THIESEN, and RUSSELL J. COX, individuals, Intervenors.

ORDER
PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by respondents and intervenors from
an order of the districtcourt of Lewis and Clark County granting
a 

### writof mandamus compelling the Secretary of State toplace the Attorney General's original explanatory statement or summary of InitiativeNo. 71 (the so-called nuclear siting initiative)
on the ballot for the general election. The order of the districtcourt

### was orally entered by the districtjudge following hearing on September 22, 1976; the notice of appeal was filed September 23, the ruleswere suspended and the appeal was heard by this Court on the same day pursuant towritten agreement and stipulation of counsel for allparties except the Secretary of Statewho did not appear; and the matter was argued, written briefs presented, and submitted to the Court for decision on September 23. It was represented to this Court by allappearing parties that thisCourt's decision herein 

### was necessary not later than September 24 to meet statutory and printing deadlines. Wenow. 

### reverse the order of the districtcourt. We hold that the second explanatory statement or summary of theAttorney -1-

### General on Initiative 71 is entitled to be printed on the ballot and we order the Secretary of State to proceed accordingly. The reasons for our decision are: 

### (1) The original statement or summary of the Attorney General,viz

# . "Thisactwould amend the Montana Major Facility SitingAct. The proposed amendmentwould require legislative approval, in addition to the approval of the Board of Natural Resources, for construction of a nuclear facility. The Board may refuse approval if it finds: that the facility's liability is limited; that the facility's safety system is not satisfactory;or that there is a reasonable chance that radioactive or chemically toxic waste may be released into the environment. The actwould further require the governor to publish procedures for evacuating affected communities and to establish emergency medical plans." does not satisfy the requirements of section 37-104.1, R.C.M. 

## *** 1947, in that it is not "a/true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in plain, easily understood language and in such a manner as shall not be an argument or likely to create prejudice for or against themeasure." It could mislead the voters and is therefore illegal. (2) 

### The second statement of the Attorney General,viz. "ThisAct would amend the Montana Major Facilities Siting Act by banning nuclear power plants in Montana until Congress removes federal liability limits. If this action takes place then further conditionsmust be met, or the ban of nuclear facilitieswould remain in effect. Such conditions include the comprehensive testing of substantially similar physical nuclear systems in actual operation and technical findingsby the Legislature and the Board of Natural Resources that there is no reasonable chance of radioactivematerials being released into the environment because of imperfect storage, earthquakes, acts of God, sabotage,act of war, theft, etc." satisfies the requirements of section 37-104.1, R.C.M. 1947. (3)Mandamus is a proper remedy. Section 93-9102,R.C.M.
(4)TheAttorney General has the power to revise his original statement or summary after the 10day period providedin section 37-104.1, R.C.M. 1947, by reason of section 37- 106, R.C.M. 1947, providing that the form of ballot shall be prescribed by the attorney general without time limitation. Let remittitur issue forthwith. 

### /

Chief Justice

\ /