Summary
The Supreme Court of Montana held that a nine-year delay barred plaintiffs' challenge to the procedures used to enact Constitutional Initiative 64, which imposed term limits on several state and federal offices. The court applied the doctrine of laches and declined to reach the merits of the constitutional challenges. A separate opinion concurred in the result but dissented from permanently barring procedural challenges and questioned the exercise of original jurisdiction without a factual record.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether laches barred plaintiffs from challenging, nine years after enactment, the process by which voters approved Constitutional Initiative 64.
- Whether CI-64 complied with the Montana Constitution's separate-vote requirement.
- Whether CI-64 complied with the Montana Constitution's single-subject requirement.
- Whether CI-64's severability clause applied despite alleged constitutional defects in its submission and the invalidity of its federal-office term limits.
- Whether plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs under the Private Attorney General Doctrine.
Holdings
- Laches bars plaintiffs from challenging the process by which Montana voters approved CI-64 nine years earlier. A procedural challenge to an initiative brought after unreasonable delay is barred when enforcement would be inequitable or prejudicial to parties who relied on the initiative's presumptive validity.
Key quotations
“Laches is not a mere matter of elapsed time, but rather, it is principally a question of the inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced.” (¶ 25)
“Without addressing the merits of Plaintiffs' claim, we hold that the doctrine of laches bars Plaintiffs from challenging the process by which the voters approved CI-64.” (¶ 42)
Factual background
Constitutional Initiative 64 was enacted in Montana's November 3, 1992 general election and imposed term limits on ten state and federal offices through Article IV, Section 8 of the Montana Constitution. The initiative required voters to approve or reject term limits for all ten offices in a single ballot proposition. In 2001, state senators Mack Cole and B.F. "Chris" Christiaens were deemed ineligible for reelection under CI-64, and their constituents joined them in challenging the initiative's enactment procedure. The challenge was filed approximately nine years after enactment, after executive officers and legislators had left office in reliance on CI-64's presumptive validity.
Procedural history
CI-64 was approved by Montana voters in November 1992. On December 18, 2001, plaintiffs filed an original complaint challenging the initiative's submission and enactment procedures and seeking to invalidate the election and enjoin enforcement. The Montana Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction on December 20, 2001, and held that the nine-year delay, combined with prejudice to persons who relied on CI-64, barred the challenge under laches.