Opinion ID: 881789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Holdovers

Text: Mr. Huntley argues that under this Court's interpretations of the 1889 Constitution an appointee to a vacant judicial office may not holdover, remain in office, after the term expires unless specifically authorized by a statute or the Constitution. Because the Constitution does not authorize holdovers for either Supreme Court or District Court positions, he reasons that elections must be held to fill the succeeding terms of office. We agree with Mr. Huntley's first premise, but not with his second, and therefore, not with his conclusion. In Montana, the general rule for holdovers prior to enactment of the 1972 Constitution was stated as: [O]ne who is appointed to fill a vacancy in an elective office fills out the unexpired term only, unless by virtue of the express wording of the Constitution or statute he may hold over until his successor is elected and qualified. State ex rel. Morgan v. Knight (1926), 76 Mont. 71, 79, 245 P. 267, 270. The Constitution expressly provides for the holding over of Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judges. Even under the annual legislative sessions envisioned by the 1972 Constitutional Convention delegates, see Art. V. Sec. 6, Mont. Const. (1972), holdovers would have occurred. The annual sessions began on the first Monday of January and ran sixty legislative days into the first week of March. Art. V, Sec. 6, Mont. Const.; § 43-205, RCM (1947). The eight-year and six-year terms of Supreme Court and District Court offices expired on the day before the first Monday of January. Section 93-201, RCM (1947); § 93-307, RCM (1947). This statutory chronology virtually guaranteed that certain nominees could not be confirmed by the Senate until after the terms had expired. With the terms expiring on the day before the legislative sessions began, any nomination made after the legislature adjourned in March to fill the final year of a term could not be confirmed until the legislature convened on the first Monday of the following January  the day after the term expired. The plain language of the 1972 Constitution speaks directly to this situation. Art. VII, Sec. 8(1), Mont. Const. provides that a nomination made while the senate is not in session shall be effective as an appointment until the end of the next session. By providing that such a nomination would be effective until the end of the next legislative session, the Convention delegates ensured that the Senate would have an opportunity to consider a nominee's confirmation even in the very foreseeable event that the term would expire before the legislature met. We, therefore cannot agree with Mr. Huntley's position that judicial holdovers are not authorized. The present Constitution not only authorizes holdovers, it mandates them.