Opinion ID: 881789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Terms and Tenure

Text: The Secretary of State argues that a holdover in a judicial office violates the Constitution by lengthening the preceding term and shortening the succeeding term contrary to Art. VII, Sec. 7(2), Mont. Const., which mandates eight-year terms for Supreme Court Justices and six-year terms for District Court Judges. In his interpretation, a holdover serves a term of greater than eight or six years, and the successor must be elected to a term of less than eight or six years. This Court has already rejected this type of argument because it confuses term with tenure. Tenure refers to the time an official actually spends in office, whereas term refers to a fixed and definite period of time. The law governing judicial appointees states: An appointee confirmed by the senate serves until the next succeeding general election. The candidate elected at that election holds the office for the remainder of the unexpired term. Section 3-1-1014, MCA (Emphasis added.). The fact that an appointed officer's tenure necessarily extends beyond the end of a statutory term, or impinges on the following term, does not lengthen or shorten the term of office. State ex rel. Olsen v. Swanberg (1956), 130 Mont. 202, 211, 299 P.2d 446, 451.