Opinion ID: 876640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Attorney General's Statement

Text: Relator's contentions with respect to the Attorney General's statement are akin to his objections to the title of the Initiative. Relator contends the statement should inform the voter that the proposed Initiative is in effect a ban or a prohibition on nuclear facilities in the State, and that the Attorney General should use those words or words of like import in his statement. In Sawyer Stores, Inc. v. Mitchell, et al. (1936), 103 Mont. 148, 62 P.2d 342, this Court enjoined the Secretary of State from placing an Initiative which purported to tax chain stores on the ballot. This Court found the explanatory statement, then written by the Secretary of State, was clearly misleading, in that it did not mention the tax applied not only to chain stores, but to individually-owned stores. We do not have that situation here. The statement of the Attorney General as we have quoted it above, fairly states to the voters what is proposed within the Initiative. Relator contends the Attorney General has no discretion in this matter and that because in relator's view, the proposed Initiative is indeed a ban, the Attorney General must be directed to insert the words ban or a similar word in his statement to the voters. We hold, however, that as long as the Attorney General in his explanatory statement uses ordinary plain language, explains the general purpose of the issues submitted, in language that is true and impartial, and not argumentative or likely to create prejudice either for or against the issue, he has followed the law (section 37-127(3), R.C.M. 1947). His discretion as to the choice of language in following the provisions of section 37-127(3) is entirely his. We do not find the word ban or a word of like import should be contained in the statement for the same reasons that we do not find such words necessary in the title of the Initiative.