Judge throws out ballot initiatives

By MATT GOURAS, AP 9/13/06
HELENA, Mont. - A state judge on Wednesday threw out three controversial ballot initiatives, concluding that methods used to gather signatures for each were fraudulent and deceptive.

District Judge Dirk M. Sandefur of Great Falls said out-of-state signature gatherers used methods that were "permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of fraud and procedural noncompliance."

He said all the signatures gathered by those people must be invalidated and that the initiatives themselves -- Constitutional Initiative 97, CI-98 and Initiative 154 -- also must be invalidated.

Trevis Butcher, a key backer of all three initiatives, said the judge's decision was "based on hearsay." He also said the judge had a conflict of interest in the decision since one of the initiatives, CI-98, deals with recalling judges voters don't like.

"My reaction is this is the most flagrant, appalling abuse of power and judicial activism I have ever seen," Butcher said Wednesday. "It is appalling. And it is a sad day in the state of Montana when citizens no longer have the right to petition and be heard by their state government."

Measures similar to CI-97, which would cap state spending, have been recently thrown off the ballot in other states due to similar complaints over the signatures.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently threw out that state's proposed "taxpayer bill of rights." Last week, a Michigan board removed a similar initiative from that state's ballot and the Nevada Supreme Court did the same there. The Nevada high court also erased several sections of a plan to limit land seizures by government agencies, similar to the sentiment behind Montana's I-154.

Butcher said supporters will immediately appeal the Montana decision to the state Supreme Court.

"That will give the voters of Montana a chance to see where our Supreme Court stands on these issues as well," he said.

Sandefur clearly was expecting the harsh response.

In his opinion he wrote that "contrary to the politically provocative rhetoric that is certain to follow, invalidation of the signature-gathering process does not result in the disenfranchisement of the people who support the ballot initiatives."

He said supporters do not have a right to vote on them until they legally qualify the measures for the ballot, something they are free to do next election cycle.

Attorney General Mike McGrath, whose office played a role in defending the secretary of state's action to certify the measures, said he understood the decision.

"Based on the record, the judge had to no choice but to throw out the initiatives because of the pervasive fraud in the process itself," he said.

Initiative opponents, represented by Helena attorney Mike Meloy, argued in court last week that signature gatherers purposely gave false addresses and names to avoid being located should their methods be called into question. Opponents also produced witnesses who said they were duped into signing some of the petitions.

"While it is important for the people to have the right to propose initiatives, it is also important that the statutory requirements guaranteeing the integrity of the initiative process be followed," Meloy said in a statement on Wednesday. "

These committees had the choice to do it right, to follow the letter and spirit of Montana's initiative laws; they chose instead to utilize out-of-state signature gatherers of dubious character who flaunted and broke Montana's laws."

Montanans in Action, of which Butcher serves as executive director, has given the bulk of the funding to push all three initiatives. Supporters of each relied largely on paid signature gatherers who opponents allege were brought in from out of state.

In his 46-page decision, Sandefur concluded there were numerous examples of questionable techniques used to gather signatures.

In one instance, Sandefur concluded that one signature gatherer in Billings, based on what the man provided, would have had to collect one signature per minute over a two-week period.

"This rate is even more incredible upon considering that the claimed signatures were gathered from people living in various areas of the state geographically distant from Billings," Sandefur said.

"In another example of patently deceptive practices, a number of paid out-of-state signature gatherers used bait-and-switch tactics to fraudulently induce countless Montanans to sign petitions other than the petitions they thought they were signing," he said.

A service of the Associated Press(AP)