Opinion ID: 890151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: LR-119's Amendments

Text: ¶ 66 Current statutes are consistent with Article VII. Section 3-2-102(1), MCA, states that a person is not eligible for the office of Supreme Court justice unless the person is a citizen of the United States, has resided in the state 2 years immediately before taking office, and has been admitted to practice law in Montana for at least 5 years prior to the date of appointment or election. Section 3-2-102(2), MCA, states that Supreme Court justices must reside within the state during their terms of office. And § 3-2-101, MCA, states that Supreme Court justices are elected by the qualified electors of the state at large. LR-119 would amend this system in two ways. ¶ 67 First, LR-119 would create new qualifications for the office of Supreme Court justice. Specifically, it would add the following italicized language to § 3-2-102, MCA: (1) A person is not eligible for the office of justice of the supreme court unless the person is a citizen of the United States, has resided in the state 2 years immediately before taking office, and has been admitted to practice law in Montana for at least 5 years prior to the date of appointment or election. (2) Justices of the supreme court must reside within the state during their terms of office. Once elected from a district, a justice is not required to reside within the district during the justice's service in office. (3) A supreme court justice must, at the time of initial election, be a qualified elector of the supreme court district from which the justice is elected. A supreme court justice appointed to fill a vacancy must, at the time of appointment, be a qualified elector of the same initial supreme court district as the justice being replaced, and in an election following an appointment, the elected justice must be a qualified elector of the initial district. LR-119 (SB 268), § 2. Hence, in addition to (1) being a citizen of the United States who (2) has resided in Montana for two years immediately before taking office and (3) has been admitted to practice law in Montana for at least five years prior to the date of appointment or election, the person would also have to (4) be a qualified elector of the Supreme Court district from which the person is elected or appointed. ¶ 68 The Constitution defines qualified elector as [a]ny citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older who meets the registration and residence requirements provided by law.... Mont. Const. art. IV, § 2; see also § 13-1-101(10), MCA (`Elector' means an individual qualified to vote under state law.). Among the qualifications to vote, a person must be registered as required by law and be a resident ... of the county in which the person offers to vote for at least 30 days. Section 13-1-111(1)(a), (c), MCA. Thus, in requiring the person to be a qualified elector of the supreme court district, LR-119 would effectively create two new qualifications for Supreme Court justice: at the time of election or appointment, the justice (a) must be registered to vote and (b) must be a resident not merely of the state, but of a specific portion of the statespecifically, a county within the Supreme Court district from which the justice is elected or appointed. We agree with the District Court that LR-119's attempt to add these qualifications is unconstitutional. The problem is not that LR-119 would amend § 3-2-102, MCA. The problem, rather, is that the amendments to this statute would effectively amend the Constitution. As we have stated, when the Constitution has prescribed the qualifications required to hold a particular office, neither the Legislature nor the people have the power to supplement the constitutional pronouncement by prescribing additional qualifications. Anaconda Copper Mining, 30 Mont. at 537, 77 P. at 315; Chenoweth, 31 Mont. at 44, 77 P. at 302; Palagi, 113 Mont. at 357, 126 P.2d at 826. To be sure, the Constitution is clear that the right and power of government derives from and originates with the people, and the people may alter the Constitution whenever they deem it necessary. [10] Yet, while the people may amend the Constitution, they may not violate it in the process. The Constitution prescribes the specific methods for making amendments. See Mont. Const. art. XIV, §§ 1, 2, 8, 9. Statutory measures are not one of the constitutionally allowed methods. Accordingly, LR-119's attempt to create new qualifications for Supreme Court justice by means of a statutory referendum is facially unconstitutional. ¶ 69 Second, LR-119 would alter the structure of the Supreme Court. It would revise § 3-2-101, MCA, to delete the language [the justices] are elected by the qualified electors of the state at large and replace it with [each justice is] elected from a separate district of the state as provided in Section 3. LR-119 (SB 268), § 1. Section 3 of the referendum defines the Supreme Court districts. Thus, rather than statewide elections, LR-119 would mandate district-based elections. ¶ 70 In many respects, LR-119's proposed system for selecting justices is identical to the Constitution's existing system for selecting senators and representatives. Article V, Section 14(1) provides that [t]he state shall be divided into as many districts as there are members of the house, and each district shall elect one representative. LR-119 likewise provides that the state shall be divided into seven districts (the number of Supreme Court justices) and specifies that [t]here must be one supreme court justice selected from each district. LR-119 (SB 268), § 3(1), (2). Article V, Section 14(1) provides that [e]ach district shall consist of compact and contiguous territory and [a]ll districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable. LR-119 likewise provides that [t]he legislature shall review the districts after each decennial census for purposes of maintaining districts with approximately equal populations while following county lines. LR-119 (SB 268), § 3(3). Article V, Section 4 requires a candidate for the Legislature to be a resident of the county if it contains one or more districts or of the district if it contains all or parts of more than one county for six months next preceding the general election. LR-119 likewise requires a candidate for the Supreme Court to be a qualified elector (i.e., registered voter, and resident for at least 30 days) of the district from which the candidate is elected. LR-119 (SB 268), §§ 1, 2. Essentially, then, LR-119 would transform the Supreme Court into a representative body identical to the Legislature in the method of selection, but tasked with a judicial function instead of a legislative function. Notably, the State characterizes the intent of the law as being to tie Justices to the districts from which they are elected. LR-119 also would eliminate the right presently held by all Montana voters to select all seven justices of the Supreme Court. Each voter would have the right to select only the one justice whose seat corresponds with the voter's district. ¶ 71 As with the attempt to add qualifications to the office of Supreme Court justice, however, this attempt to alter the structure of the Supreme Court by making it into a representative body composed of members elected from districts is likewise facially unconstitutional. Neither the Legislature nor the people have the power to alter the constitutionally established structure of government by means of a statutory referendum. Again, such amendments to the Constitution must be made through one of the methods permitted by the Constitution itself. See Mont. Const. art. XIV, §§ 1, 2, 8, 9. ¶ 72 The State argues two theories for sustaining LR-119. We address these in turn.