Court Opinion

ID: 9799132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 05:48:21.386758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:48.912423
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BAKER,
concurring.
¶25 I agree with virtually every point made by the Dissent. I disagree with the Court in particular that the title of the measure in question, especially when considered in conjunction with the other ballot statements, is confusing or misleading. Nonetheless, the Legislature has created an irreconcilable conflict that only it can resolve and, for that reason, I am constrained to conclude that LR-127 must be withheld from the ballot.
¶26 It is a fundamental principle that the Court must, in attempting to harmonize statutes, attempt to give effect to all provisions of the law *304without inserting what the Legislature has omitted from a statute or omitting what the Legislature has inserted. Section 1-2-101, MCA. Although it appears to be longstanding practice of the Legislature and the Legislative Services Division not to count numbers as words in determining the length of the title of a measure referred to the voters, the plain language of § 5-4-102, MCA, does not accommodate that practice.
¶27 It would be a simple fix for the Legislature to amend that section to provide, “All bills referred by the legislature to a vote of the people shall have a title of no more than 100 words, exclusive of section numbers of any statutes being amended or repealed” The Court, however, cannot supply the omitted language. I believe the Court correctly concludes that we would have to ignore § 5-4-102, MCA, in order to deny the Petitioners’ challenge in this case.