Montanans for Justice v. State ex rel. McGrath

146 P.3d 759 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Montanans for Justice v. State ex rel. McGrath

Montana Supreme Court
146 P.3d 759 (2006)

JC

Facts

A group of political ballot committees (the initiative committees) (defendants) attempted to have three different ballot initiatives placed on Montana’s November 2006 ballot. However, a group of opposing ballot committees including Montanans for Justice (plaintiffs) filed suit against not only the initiative committees but also the state of Montana, including Attorney General Mike McGrath (defendant), seeking a ruling that the initiative committees had violated state law in their manner of obtaining signatures and that the initiatives in question should be struck from the ballot. At issue was evidence suggesting that most of the signatures obtained in support of the initiatives allegedly had been witnessed by people located across the state from the signers, and thus the certification of the signatures was apparently inaccurate, if not fraudulent. For instance, one of the five main circulators obtaining signatures would mathematically have had to secure a signature every minute of a particular two-week period for his certification to be accurate. Additionally, all 43 of the circulators employed by the initiative committees gave false or fictional addresses in their certification documents. Finally, there were multiple affidavits presented indicating that some of the circulators had used a bait-and-switch tactic to fool signers into signing multiple petitions rather than a single petition. The initiative committees offered scant explanations of any of the irregularities. The trial court invalidated the signatures obtained by the five principal circulators whose certifications were self-evidently errant and invalidated the three initiatives. The initiative committees appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cotter, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership