Opinion ID: 889326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: ¶36 Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear and decide the case or matter before it. State v. Martz, 2008 MT 382, ¶ 21, 347 Mont. 47, 196 P.3d 1239. This power and authority is conferred on courts only by the Constitution or statutes adopted pursuant to the Constitution. Martz, ¶ 21. ¶37 Because jurisdiction involves the fundamental power and authority of a court to determine and hear an issue, a court may address the question of its jurisdiction sua sponte. See Stanley v. Lemire, 2006 MT 304, ¶¶ 30-32, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643. In fact, courts have an “independent obligation” to determine whether jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party, and a court which in fact lacks jurisdiction cannot acquire it by consent of the parties. Stanley, ¶¶ 31-32. ¶38 Article VII, Section 2 of the Montana Constitution delineates the parameters of this Court’s jurisdiction. It states as follows: (1) The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction and may issue, hear, and determine writs appropriate thereto. It has original jurisdiction to issue, hear, and determine writs of habeas corpus and such other writs as may be provided by law. (2) It has general supervisory control over all other courts. (3) It may make rules governing appellate procedure, practice and procedure for all other courts, admission to the bar and the conduct of its members. Rules of procedure shall be subject to disapproval by the legislature in either of the two sessions following promulgation. (4) Supreme court process shall extend to all parts of the state. ¶39 Nowhere in Article VII, Section 2, is there authority for this Court to entertain an original proceeding concerning a ballot challenge. Our original jurisdiction is limited. 21 We have original jurisdiction “to issue, hear, and determine writs of habeas corpus and such other writs as may be provided by law.” The present proceeding does not involve a writ. Hence, there being no constitutional source for this Court to exercise original jurisdiction over a non-writ proceeding, the statutes granting us such jurisdiction are, necessarily, null and void. Stanley, ¶ 52 (“Jurisdiction is conferred on the courts only by the Constitution or statutes adopted pursuant to the Constitution.” (emphasis added)). We must dismiss these cases sua sponte.

¶40 The Court nevertheless proceeds on the premise that it has jurisdiction over this proceeding. The statutes governing this Court’s jurisdiction are set out in Title 3, chapter 2, part 2, MCA (which is titled “Supreme Court Jurisdiction”). The jurisdictional provisions specific to review of ballot statements are contained in § 3-2-202(3), MCA, which provides as follows: (a) The supreme court has original jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s ballot statements for initiated measures and the attorney general’s ballot statements for referred measures and the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination in an action brought pursuant to 13-27-316. (b)(i) In an original proceeding under subsection (3)(a), the petitioner and the attorney general shall certify the absence of factual issues or shall stipulate to and file any factual record necessary to the supreme court’s consideration of the petitioner’s ballot statements or the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination. (ii) If the parties to an original proceeding under subsection (3)(a) fail to make the certification or stipulation required by subsection (3)(b)(i), the supreme court shall refer the proceeding to the district court in the county of residence of the lead petitioner for development of a factual record and an order that addresses the issues provided in 13-27-316(3). . . . 22 ¶41 Beginning with subsection (3)(a), this Court “has original jurisdiction to review [1] the petitioner’s ballot statements for initiated measures and [2] the attorney general’s ballot statements for referred measures and [3] the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination in an action brought pursuant to 13-27-316.” This case falls into the third category: a challenge to “the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination in an action brought pursuant to 13-27-316.” MCFA’s and Harrington’s petitions state that they are brought under § 13-27-316, MCA, and the petitions specifically challenge the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination for I-164. ¶42 Next, there is no dispute that the parties have failed to make the certification or stipulation required by subsection (3)(b)(i)—i.e., they have not certified the absence of factual issues or stipulated to and filed any factual record. The Attorney General asserts that the development of a factual record in district court would be “minimal,” and the Court opines that “no issues of fact exist to preclude this Court from” rendering a decision. But that is beside the point. The statute states that the petitioner and the Attorney General “shall certify the absence of factual issues or shall stipulate to and file any factual record necessary to the supreme court’s consideration of . . . the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination.” Section 3-2-202(3)(b)(i), MCA. The statute does not say that the certification or stipulation need be filed only if the Attorney General believes the development of a factual record in district court would be more than “minimal” or if this Court happens to perceive some factual issues. Rather, it says that the certification or stipulation “shall” be filed. Period. 23 ¶43 Lastly, when the parties fail to abide by this requirement, as is the case here, this Court’s only course of action is statutorily mandated: If the parties to an original proceeding under subsection (3)(a) fail to make the certification or stipulation required by subsection (3)(b)(i), the supreme court shall refer the proceeding to the district court in the county of residence of the lead petitioner for development of a factual record and an order that addresses the issues provided in 13-27-316(3). Section 3-2-202(3)(b)(ii), MCA (emphasis added). Honoring this unambiguous statutory mandate, we are required to refer this proceeding to a district court for the purposes stated in § 3-2-303(3)(b)(ii), MCA.
¶44 As a practical matter, if this proceeding were referred to a district court, there would not be time to resolve MCFA’s and Harrington’s challenges before the Secretary of State’s August 19, 2010 deadline for certifying the candidates and ballot issues for the November 2 ballot. See § 13-12-201(1), MCA. To get around this problem, the Court declares that § 3-2-202, MCA, does not apply to these cases. ¶45 The first obvious problem with this approach is that if § 3-2-202, MCA, does not apply to these cases, then we do not have jurisdiction. As noted, § 3-2-202(3), MCA, is the statute which purports to confer “original jurisdiction” on this Court to review ballot statements. No other provision does so. The Court asserts that § 13-27-316(5), MCA, “endows” this Court with “original jurisdiction” to hear challenges to ballot statements, but this is pure fantasy. Section 13-27-316(5), MCA, states: An original proceeding in the supreme court under this section is the exclusive remedy for a challenge to the petitioner’s ballot statements, as 24 approved by the attorney general, or the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination. A ballot issue may not be invalidated under this section after the secretary of state has certified the ballot under 13-12-201. It is self-evident that this is not an affirmative “endowment” of jurisdiction. Rather, it is a reference to the “original proceeding” which is established by the grant of “original jurisdiction” in § 3-2-202(3), MCA. ¶46 The second problem with the Court’s approach is that it involves a blatant remaking of Harrington’s and MCFA’s challenges. Again, this Court “has original jurisdiction to review [1] the petitioner’s ballot statements for initiated measures and [2] the attorney general’s ballot statements for referred measures and [3] the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination in an action brought pursuant to 13-27-316.” Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Focusing on the third category, the question becomes whether Harrington and MCFA challenge the Attorney General’s “legal sufficiency” determination and whether their action is brought pursuant to § 13-27-316, MCA. Section 13-27-316(2), MCA, states: If the opponents of a ballot issue believe that the petitioner ballot statements approved by the attorney general do not satisfy the requirements of 13-27-312 or believe that the attorney general was incorrect in determining that the petition was legally sufficient, they may, within 10 days of the date of certification to the governor that the completed petition has been officially filed, file an original proceeding in the supreme court challenging the adequacy of the statement or the attorney general’s determination and requesting the court to alter the statement or overrule the attorney general’s determination concerning the legal sufficiency of the petition. . . . 25 ¶47 The Court concedes that Harrington and MCFA “challenge the ballot statements and Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination for I-164 under § 13-27-316, MCA.” In this regard, “legal sufficiency” is defined as follows: As used in this part, “legal sufficiency” means that the petition complies with statutory and constitutional requirements governing submission of the proposed issue to the electors. Review of the petition for legal sufficiency does not include consideration of the substantive legality of the issue if approved by the voters. Section 13-27-312(7), MCA (emphasis added). One of the so-called “statutory . . . requirements governing submission of the proposed issue to the electors” is set forth in subsection (4) of the same statute: “The ballot statements must express the true and impartial explanation of the proposed ballot issue in plain, easily understood language and may not be arguments or written so as to create prejudice for or against the issue.” Section 13-27-312(4), MCA. The Attorney General is specifically instructed to ensure that this “statutory requirement” is met. See § 13-27-312(1), MCA (“[T]he attorney general . . . shall determine whether the ballot statements comply with the requirements of this section.”). Here, Harrington and MCFA challenge the Attorney General’s determination that I-164’s statement of purpose, fiscal statement, and statements of implication are legally sufficient under § 13-27-312(4), MCA. Thus, Harrington and MCFA do, in fact, challenge the Attorney General’s determination that the petition complies with the “requirements governing submission of the proposed issue to the electors.” 26 ¶48 According to the Court, however, Harrington and MCFA raise an improper challenge to the “substantive legality” of I-164, rather than to the Attorney General’s determination of legal sufficiency. This is an outright fabrication. Indeed, the Court cannot point to a single sentence in MCFA’s petition or Harrington’s petition challenging the “substantive legality” of I-164. They do not contend that I-164, if approved by the voters, would constitute a taking of property without just compensation. They do not contend that I-164, if approved by the voters, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. They do not contend that I-164, if approved by the voters, would deprive lenders of property without due process of law. They do not contend that I-164, if approved by the voters, would constitute unconstitutional special legislation. In short, neither MCFA nor Harrington lodges any challenge whatsoever to “the substantive legality of [I-164] if approved by the voters.” Section 13-27-312(7), MCA. ¶49 Rather, their petitions clearly and unmistakably challenge the Attorney General’s determination that the ballot statements comply with the statutory requirements governing submission of I-164 to the electors. The first sentence of MCFA’s Summary of Argument states: MCFA contends that I-164’s ballot statements do not meet the requirements of section 13-27-312, MCA. As a result, the statements do not meet the statutory requirements for submitting the proposed issue to the electors. And the first sentence of MCFA’s analysis beginning on page 6 of its petition states: MCFA initiated this original proceeding pursuant to section 13-27-316, MCA, for the purpose of challenging the adequacy of I-164’s ballot statements. 27 MCFA then goes on, over four pages, to explain why, in its view, the ballot statements do not satisfy § 13-27-312(4), MCA. Finally, at the conclusion of its argument, MCFA asks this Court to find that I-164 ballot statements do not meet the requirements of section 13-27-312, MCA, and consequently do not meet the statutory requirements for submitting the proposed issue to the electors, and overrule any determination that the ballot issue is legally sufficient. Harrington’s petition is to the same effect. He states: This is an action for judgment arising from the manner in which the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Montana, erroneously prepared and approved statements and made a legal sufficiency determination for a ballot initiative, I-164 . . . . Harrington further asserts that the statement of purpose, fiscal statement, and statements of implication approved by the Attorney General do not meet the requirements of § 13-27-312(4), MCA—i.e., they do not “express the true and impartial explanation of the proposed ballot issue in plain, easily understood language,” and they are “written so as to create prejudice for . . . the issue.” Harrington then goes on to propose alternate ballot statements, something he would not have to bother with if he were truly raising a challenge to the “substantive legality” of the measure as the Court claims. See § 13-27-316(3)(b), MCA (“If the proceeding requests modification of ballot statements, an action brought under this section must state how the petitioner’s ballot statements approved by the attorney general do not satisfy the requirements of 13-27-312 and must propose alternate ballot statements that satisfy the requirements of 13-27-312.” (emphasis added)). 28 ¶50 Even the Court concedes elsewhere in its Order that MCFA and Harrington “invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to challenge the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination and ballot statements for Initiative No. 164” and that MCFA and Harrington “challenge the ballot statements and Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination for I-164 under § 13-27-316, MCA.” Indeed, if their challenges were to the substantive legality of I-164, and not to the Attorney General’s determination under § 13-27-312(7), MCA, that “the petition complies with statutory and constitutional requirements governing submission of the proposed issue to the electors,” then there would be no need to rewrite the ballot statements, as the Court does. ¶51 Accordingly, these cases fall squarely within the third category of § 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Yet, the parties have failed to make the certification or stipulation required by § 3-2-202(3)(b)(i), MCA. Consequently, this Court is required to refer this proceeding to a district court. The Court’s refusal to do so only demonstrates that it is willing to ignore statutory mandates and to distort Petitioners’ arguments in order to reach a desired result.