The Montana Supreme Court delivered an opinion on January 6, 2026, in the case of Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen, resolving a dispute over the legal sufficiency of a proposed ballot initiative. Justice Jim Rice authored the court's opinion addressing the petition for declaratory judgment filed by the Transparent Election Initiative against Montana's top election officials.
The case arose when the Transparent Election Initiative sought to place Ballot Issue 4 before voters, but Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen determined the measure was legally insufficient. Knudsen concluded that the proposed initiative violated Article XIV, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution, which contains the state's separate vote requirement. This constitutional provision typically requires that certain types of ballot measures be voted on separately rather than combined into a single proposition.
TEI challenged the Attorney General's determination through an original proceeding in the Montana Supreme Court, seeking declaratory judgment under Montana Code Annotated Section 13-27-605(5). The organization requested the court declare that Knudsen erred in his legal sufficiency determination and order him to either approve TEI's ballot statements or prepare and forward proper ballot statements to Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen within five days.
The petition also sought to strike both the Attorney General's fiscal statement and statement of material harm related to the proposed ballot measure. These documents typically accompany ballot initiatives to inform voters about the potential financial impact and other consequences of the proposed measure.
Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen was named as a respondent in her official capacity, reflecting her role in Montana's election administration process. Under Montana law, the Secretary of State oversees the ballot initiative process, while the Attorney General reviews proposed measures for legal sufficiency.
The case attracted significant attention from business organizations, with both the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Chamber of Commerce filing amicus curiae briefs supporting the Attorney General's position. The Montana Mining Association was represented by attorneys Gage Hart Zobell and Ben D. Kappelman from Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Missoula. The Montana Chamber of Commerce was represented by Dale Schowengerdt from Landmark Law, PLLC in Helena.
Matthew T. Cochenour of Cochenour Law Office, PLLC in Helena represented the Transparent Election Initiative in the proceedings. The Attorney General's office was represented by Austin Knudsen himself, along with Assistant Attorneys General Michael Russell and Michael Noonan.
The separate vote requirement at the center of the dispute is designed to prevent voters from being forced to accept or reject multiple distinct policy proposals in a single ballot measure. This constitutional provision helps ensure that each significant policy change receives individual consideration from the electorate.
The involvement of business organizations as amici suggests that Ballot Issue 4 likely contained provisions that would have affected commercial interests in Montana. The Montana Mining Association and Montana Chamber of Commerce typically intervene in cases involving regulations or policies that could impact their member organizations.
The case represents part of Montana's ongoing legal framework governing ballot initiatives, which allows citizens to propose changes to state law or the constitution through the petition process. However, proposed measures must meet various legal requirements, including compliance with constitutional provisions like the separate vote requirement.
The Attorney General's role in reviewing ballot initiatives for legal sufficiency serves as a gatekeeping function to ensure that measures placed before voters comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. When the Attorney General determines a measure is legally insufficient, petitioners can challenge that determination in court, as occurred in this case.
The Montana Supreme Court's review of the Attorney General's determination reflects the judicial branch's role in interpreting constitutional requirements and ensuring that the ballot initiative process operates within established legal boundaries. The court's opinion provides guidance on how the separate vote requirement applies to ballot measures and establishes precedent for future initiative challenges.
This case demonstrates the complex interplay between citizen initiative rights and constitutional constraints in Montana's democratic processes. While the initiative process allows direct citizen participation in lawmaking, it must operate within the framework established by the state constitution.
The timing of the ruling, issued in early January, suggests the court recognized the importance of resolving the matter promptly to provide clarity for the upcoming election cycle. The expedited consideration reflects the court's understanding that election-related disputes require timely resolution to maintain the integrity of the democratic process.