Court Opinion

ID: 9396948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 23:07:06.144782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.526258
License: Public Domain

05/23/2023

                                          DA 22-0532
                                                                                    Case Number: DA 22-0532

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                          2023 MT 96N

MATTHEW G. MONFORTON,

              Petitioner and Appellant,

         v.

MICHAEL F. McMAHON,

              Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
                      In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV-22-626B
                      Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

               For Appellant:

                      Matthew G. Monforton, Self-Represented, Bozeman, Montana

               For Appellee:

                      Stefan T. Wall, Wall, McLean & Gallagher, PLLC, Helena, Montana

                                                  Submitted on Briefs: March 22, 2023

                                                            Decided: May 23, 2023

Filed:

                      __________________________________________
                                       Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2     Matthew Monforton (Monforton) appeals from an Order issued on September 12,

2022, by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court denying Monforton’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and granting District Court Judge Michael F. McMahon’s (Judge McMahon)

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. We affirm.

¶3     On June 2, 2022, Monforton filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Political

Practices (COPP) against Judge McMahon. Monforton alleged that Judge McMahon

violated the Montana Code of Ethics. On that same day, the COPP dismissed the complaint

based on its conclusion that the Code of Ethics did not apply to judges.

¶4     On June 27, 2022, Monforton filed a Petition for Judicial Review of a Final Agency

Decision and a Motion for Summary Judgment.

¶5     On July 25, 2022, Judge McMahon filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

¶6     On September 16, 2022, the District Court issued an Order denying Monforton’s

Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Judge McMahon’s Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment. The court concluded that “state officers,” subject to the code of ethics

provided for in Article XIII, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution, did not include judges.

Three inquiries led to the court’s conclusion.
                                             2
¶7     First, the District Court reviewed how the Montana State Legislature fulfilled its

obligation to create a code of ethics pursuant to Article XIII, Section 4, of the Montana

Constitution. The court noted that the Legislature complied by enacting the Code of Ethics

at Title 2, chapter 2, part 1, MCA. Second, the court assessed the applicability of the Code

of Ethics to judges.    The court asked whether “public officer,” held to the ethical

requirements set forth in § 2-2-105, MCA, and defined as “any state officer and any elected

officer of a local government” in § 2-2-102(9)(a), MCA, included judges. That question

required the court to look at the definition of “state officer” to determine if it included

judges.

¶8     Based on § 2-2-102(12), MCA, which defines “state officer” as “including all

elected officers and directors of the executive branch of state government,” the District

Court concluded that judges were not in that definition and, therefore, that judges did not

constitute “public officers” subject to the Code of Ethics. The court instead interpreted the

aforementioned definitions as confining the applicability of the Code of Ethics to

“legislators, public officers, and public employees[.]”

¶9     Third, the District Court evaluated the merits of Monforton’s argument that the

definition of “state officer” in § 2-2-102(12), MCA, should be read more expansively

because the definition specifies only which individuals it “includes,” and fails to exclude

judges. The court did not find this argument persuasive because the legislature could have

“easily” made the Code of Ethics applicable to judges but refrained from doing so.

¶10    The Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) governs judicial review of a

final agency decision by the COPP. MAPA, § 2-4-704(2)(a)(i)-(vi), MCA, stipulates that
                                             3
a reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency’s decision “if substantial rights of the

appellant have been prejudiced” because:

       (a) the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
       (i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
       (ii) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
       (iii) made upon unlawful procedure;
       (iv) affected by other error of law;
       (v) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial
       evidence on the whole record; or
       (vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
       unwarranted exercise of discretion.

¶11    Under MAPA’s provided framework, a district court reviews the agency’s decision

to determine whether the agency’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its

determinations of law are correct. This same standard of review applies to both the district

court’s review of the agency decision and this Court’s review of the district court’s

decision. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness.

¶12    Monforton argues that district judges are “state officers” subject to the ethics code

referenced in Article XIII, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution.1 He acknowledges that

the intent of the framers controls this Court’s interpretation of a constitutional provision

and that the plain meaning of the language often allows for the discernment of their intent.

Where no definition is available to establish the plain meaning of the word or phrase at

issue, Monforton suggests that we will consider the term to have its plain and ordinary

meaning.

1
 Article XIII, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution mandates that the Legislature “provide a
code of ethics prohibiting conflict between public duty and private interest for members of the
Legislature and all state and local officers and employees.”
                                                  4
¶13    From this truncated synopsis of this Court’s approach to interpreting constitutional

provisions, Monforton concludes that because the Montana Constitution does not define

“state officers,” the term must have its “ordinary, well-understood meaning,” as provided

by Black’s Law Dictionary: “[a] person whose authority or jurisdiction extends to the

general public or state as a whole, as distinguished from an officer whose authority and

jurisdiction are confined to the limits of a political subdivision.” Black’s Law Dictionary

(11th ed. 2019), 1309. He then states that courts in Montana and elsewhere have referred

to judges who have statewide jurisdiction as “state officers,” and posits that the plain

meaning of “state officer” in Article XIII, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution must

include district judges.

¶14    Monforton also asserts that “state officer” as used in the Code of Ethics includes

district judges. In short, he contends that because Article XIII, Section 4, of the Montana

Constitution directed the Legislature to create an ethics code applicable to all “state

officers,” and “state officers” in that provision must include district judges, then “state

officers” as used in the Code of Ethics must also apply to district judges.

¶15    If possible, this Court will construe statutes in a manner that avoids constitutional

interpretation. This case turns on the applicability of the Code of Ethics, enacted at Title

2, chapter 2, part 1, MCA, to district judges.2

2
  The 2023 Montana Legislature adopted two bills—SB 252, 2023 Mont. Laws ch. 440, and
HB 412, 2023 Mont. Laws ch. 559—that amended certain sections of Title 2, chapter 2, MCA.
We do not address the merits of those bills in this Opinion but rather interpret the statute as written
at the time this action was filed.
                                                  5
¶16    Section 2-2-102(12), MCA, defines “state officer” as “including all elected officers

and directors of the executive branch of state government.” This Court interprets “state

officer” as used in the Code of Ethics in the same way as COPP and the District Court—

namely, that the Code of Ethics excludes district judges. Section 2-2-105, MCA, specifies

that the Code of Ethics applies to “public officers,” which “includes any state officer and

any elected officer of a local government” pursuant to § 2-2-102(9)(a), MCA. District

judges are not state officers under § 2-2-102(12), MCA. Consequently, district judges are

not public officers under § 2-2-102(9)(a), MCA. It follows that district judges are not

subject to the Code of Ethics under § 2-2-105, MCA.

¶17    We have determined that we can decide the merits of this appeal without ruling on

the constitutionality of the applicability of the Code of Ethics. Because the constitutional

arguments raised by Monforton are not necessary to the outcome of this appeal, we decline

to address those issues.

¶18    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

¶19    The Order denying Monforton’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Judge

McMahon’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is affirmed.

                                                 /S/ MIKE McGRATH

                                             6
We Concur:

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

                          7