SupCo halts ballot initiative seeking corporate ban on election spending
Darrell Ehrlick
(Daily Montanan) A first-of-its kind ballot initiative that has drawn interest from around the country has hit a significant roadblock from the Montana Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled on Tuesday that it violated a state constitutional provision that prohibits more than one subject from being put to voters in a single question.
Ballot Initiative 4 would revoke all the powers given to “artificial persons,” namely taking aim at corporations, which are granted legal status by the state. Then, the initiative would “regrant” powers, but prohibit corporations from political activities and politicking for ballot issues.
However, in the ruling, written by Justice Jim Rice, the court said that the initiative makes too many changes and doesn’t allow voters to decide on each one separately. The 13-page ruling leans into several challenges brought by groups recently involving constitutional changes and the power of the Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, a Republican.
But the state’s highest court didn’t decide several of the issues the group, Transparent Election Initiative, raised, saying that the one-subject rule was fatal to the initiative, and if supporters of the measure want to present them to voters, they must do it with at least two separate ballot initiatives.
Jeff Mangan, a former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, has spearheaded the effort to curb the amount of money that flows into the political cycle and Montana elections through the Transparent Election Initiative.
“Montana has a citizens’ initiative process that we can all be proud of, one that allows Montanans to roll up their sleeves to enact positive change for the betterment of family, friends, and neighbors. I hear from Montanans every day how much corporate and dark money is damaging our political process. It is a privilege to work on a matter that is so important, and that is exactly what we will continue to do,” Mangan told the Daily Montanan on Tuesday. “We appreciate and respect the work of the court. We are grateful for the guidance and understand what the court is saying. We will re-file by the end of this week. Now, I need to get back to work!”
Montana politics in 2024, with a critical U.S. Senate race that saw incumbent Democrat Jon Tester beaten by political newcomer, Tim Sheehy, brought in more than $200 million in a state of around 1.2 million. Just the Tester-Sheehy race alone topped $169 million.
The court said that while it understood the arguments of the group, its primary concern was protecting the voters of Montana and the constitution.
“The separate-vote requirement was designed to aid voters in casting their votes on constitutional issues, and as a check on the possible action of grouping several issues under one innocuous title,” the opinion said.
The decision explained that the language of the proposed amendment first revoked all powers of existing corporations, then regrants most of them, while prohibiting corporations from exercising political power. Meanwhile, the organization argued that all of those legal maneuvers were part of one overarching plan to change how corporations are treated in Montana.
The court dismissed that argument.
“We agree with the Attorney General that, even if a proposed initiative has an overarching goal, voters must be allowed to vote on each substantive change that is not closely related,” the court said.
The court said that it counted at least two items the proposed ballot initiative changes.
“Here, Transparent Election Initiative designated a target — the power to spend in politics — and casts a much wider net that revokes all powers,” the court said. “In this case, a voter may want to limit artificial persons’ ability to spend money on election or ballot-issue activity, but not limit any other powers that artificial persons may currently exercise in this state.”
Previously, the court has ruled against other initiatives that “log rolled” several issues into one ballot initiative. That is a technique that brings together disparate policies and tries to garner enough support from a wide swath of supporters.
“Although BI-4 does not combine unrelated amendments in an attempt to secure support from different groups, it would force voters who support abolishing corporate spending on elections or ballot issue to support … limit the rights of other entities … and potentially limited the powers of such organizations to engage in activities other than election and ballot issue activities in significant but unspecified other ways.”