Judge throws out ballot initiatives

By CHELSI MOY
Tribune Staff Writer September 14, 2006

A Great Falls state District Court judge Wednesday threw out three statewide initiatives slated for November's ballot citing fraud and deception by paid, out-of-state signature gatherers.

In response to a lawsuit filed by opponents of CI-97, CI-98 and I-154, Judge Dirk Sandefur agreed with the plaintiffs, stating in a 46-page ruling that the initiative process was "permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of fraud and procedural noncompliance perpetrated by paid, out-of-state, migrant signature gatherers."

Trevis Butcher, executive director of Montanans In Action, a nonprofit backing the initiatives, said he is shocked and disappointed by the judge's decision and plans to appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. The state, also a defendant in the lawsuit, does not plan to appeal.

"This is an example of judicial political activism of absolutely the worst sort," said Butcher, who went on to speculate that the decision reflected a personal bias by Sandefur because CI-98 allows voters to recall judges. "I'm more disappointed than anything. To see the voters get smacked in the face by one judge and the testimony of nine people is inexcusable."

As the initiatives get hashed out in court, county election offices across Montana are already printing November's ballots for the Sept. 22 distribution and availability deadline. The Secretary of State's Office has asked counties to remain flexible pending any decision by the high court.

Mike Meloy, who represented Montanans For Justice, the group that brought the lawsuit, commended Sandefur's decision.

Opponents of the three initiatives argued that signature gatherers duped more than 60 percent of voters in Cascade, Lewis and Clark, Lake, Gallatin, and Flathead counties into signing three petitions when they only meant to sign one. They also said that some signature gatherers — who got paid per signature — purposefully gave false addresses so as not to leave a trail of their whereabouts.

Butcher testified that out-of-state, national organizations provided much of the financial support — more than $600,000 — for signature-gathering efforts in Montana. Although Butcher refused to identify the organizations, New York real estate mogul Rich Howie, who has backed groups supporting limited state spending initiatives nationwide, is a presumed source of much of the funding.

"It's comforting to know the court agrees with what many of us have been saying," Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday. "The initiative system needs to be clean and transparent, and we are not going to allow big shots from New York to pollute our ballots."

CI-97, which proposes to cap state spending, and I-154, which would revise eminent domain laws, are among a handful of other similar initiatives nationwide getting thrown off the general election ballot.

The Michigan Court of Appeals Wednesday rejected an appeal by a group seeking to curb state spending and Oklahoma recently threw out that state's proposed "taxpayers bill of rights," citing problems with signature gathering.

In Nevada, the state's Supreme Court ripped a proposal to limit government spending from the Nov. 7 ballot and erased several sections of an eminent domain initiative.

It's not unusual for initiatives to get tangled up in court prior to finding their way onto a ballot, said Jennie Drage Bowser, initiative expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures. But it is uncommon for an initiative measure to be taken off a ballot once it's already been certified, she said.

Fraud among paid, migrant signature gatherers is a fairly common concern, Bowser said. Seven states have laws requiring that groups circulating petitions disclose whether signature gatherers are paid or volunteer. Some states require signature gathers be paid per hour — instead of per signature — while some states require that paid signature gatherers be in-state residents, she said.

Montanans In Action has five days to appeal the ruling, Butcher said, and work to do that is already underway. Butcher said he hopes that the Supreme Court will not rule based on the content of CI-98.

"They will have the responsibility to act responsible," he said. "The voters of Montana will see whether we have a fair and just court system here."

Depending on whether the state Supreme Court upholds the decision, county election offices could either re-program ballot-counting computers, not report the initiative count, stick a label over the invalid initiatives or reprint every ballot, said Janice Frankino Doggett, Chief Legal Counsel for the Secretary of State's Office.

Reprinting is expensive and labels may mess up the machines that count the ballots, she said. The most likely solution may involve posting signs at polling places notifying voters of the change.

Opponents of the initiatives requested earlier that the court require the state to print two ballots, one that listed the initiatives and another that did not. Although the court denied that request, the Secretary of State's Office notified all 56 election offices of the potential changes.