`At IN TH1-, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 20-0513 WRONG FOR MONTANA, and STEPHEN
A. ZABAWA, Petitioners,

L OCT 2 1 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana v.
ORDER TIMOTHY CHARLES FOX, COREY STAPLETON, and the STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. Petitioners, Wrong for Montana and Stephen A. Zabawa (collectively, "WFM"), seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction pursuant
to Article VII, Sections

1 and 2, of the Montana Constitution, and M. R. App. P. 14(4). WFM seeks to challenge the substantive constitutionality

of Ballot Initiative No. 190 ("I-190") regarding the legalization and taxation of marijuana and marijuana products on the grounds that 1-190, if passed, will create an appropriation that violates Article III, Section 4(1), of the Montana Constitution. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(4), an original proceeding

in the form of a declaratory judgment action may be commenced

in this Court when urgency or emergency factors make litigation
in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate and the case involves purely legal questions of statutory
or constitutional interpretation that are of statewide importance.

In its petition, WFM argues, with no further explanation

or argument, that "the imminence
of 2020 [sic] election provides the urgency underlying the necessity of original jurisdiction[1"

A single conclusory statement asserting urgency does not suffice to satisfy the requirement
of M. R. App. P. 14(4). More to the point, we have previously held that a challenge
to aballot measure based onan alleged substantive constitutional infirmity

is not an appropriate basis on which to10/21/2020Case Number: OP 20-0513invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. Hoffinan

v.State, 2014 MT 90, 374 Mont. 405, 328 P.3d 604. In Hoffman, the petitioners challenged

a proposed ballot initiative onthe grounds that it violated

anurnber of constitutional provisions, including Article III,Section 4(1), of the Montana Constitution, the precise challenge WFM alleges in this case.In denying the petition in Hoffman, wenoted: The statutes governing the processfor submission
of initiatives and referenda and legal challenges thereto were substantially amended
in 2007. 2007 Mont. Lawsch. 481. Under the laws asarnended, this Court mayexercise original jurisdiction only toreview the proposed ballot statementsfor initiatives and referenda and toreview the Attorney General's legal sufficiency deterrnination. The statutedoes notconfer original jurisdiction for anyother purposes.Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Prior tothe 2007 amendrnents,
the statute provided for this Court's consideration

of a"constitutional defect in the substance of a proposed ballot issuell" Section 3-2-202(3)(a)(ii), MCA (2005). That provision wasrernoved. 2007 Mont.Lawsch. 481, §1. Hoffman,

¶10 (ernphasis added). We expressno opinion onthe merits of WFM's constitutional challenge, nortoits right to pursuethis challenge
in district court. However, WFM'sclaim does not presentan appropriate basis onwhich toinvoke this Court's original jurisdiction. Evenif it did, WFM has wholly failed toestablish that urgencyor emergencyfactors make litigation
in the trial courtsand the normal appeal process inadequate. ITIS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory judgrnent on Original Jurisdiction

is DENIEDand DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order toall counsel of record. DATEDthis C
I—day of October, 2020. Chief Justice 2O3Justices