Text

"Section 35. Servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans. The people declare that Montana servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans may be given special considerations determined by the legislature."Mont. Const. art. II, § 35.

History

Sources

1884 Proposed Montana Constitution

The Proposed 1884 Constitution had no provision regarding the rights of servicemen, servicewomen, or veterans. It only singled out members of the service to address issues of state citizenry and voting eligibility.See, e.g., Proposed 1884 Mont. Const. art. VII, § 3, available at https://archive.org/details/montanaconstitutmontrich/page/20

1889 Montana Constitution

Like the 1884 Constitution, the 1889 Constitution did not include a provision similar to the current one, although it did provide that the State could establish soldiers' homes.1889 Montana Constitution, art. X, § 1, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/docs/1889cons.pdf

Federal Constitution

The United States Constitution does not contain a similar provision.

Other State Constitutions

The Montana Constitutional Convention Transcript states that this provision was "adopted from the North Dakota Constitution." 6 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 1842, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol6.pdf However, it is unclear whether Delegate McKeon was referencing the 1889 North Dakota Constitution or the Proposed 1971 North Dakota Constitution, which failed to pass in the April 1972 special election.See "North Dakota Constitutional Convention 1971-1972," available at http://history.nd.gov/archives/stateagencies/conscon1971.html The 1889 North Dakota Constitution does not appear to have a parallel provision, so Delegate McKeon was likely referencing the 1971 Proposed North Dakota Constitution.See 1889 N.D. Const., available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044032337206;view=1up;seq=5.

Delegate McKeon also stated that Missouri had adopted a similar provision in its constitution.6 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 1842, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol6.pdf However, the current Missouri Constitution does not have a parallel provision, though it does grant special benefits to veterans.See, e.g., Mo. Const. art. III, § 38(a); Mo. Const. art. IV, § 19.

Drafting

Delegate Proposal

Delegate McKeon proposed this provision.6 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 1842, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol6.pdf The rationale for the proposal was that Montana had a high veteran population and that consequences of the Vietnam War were affecting many veterans.Id. Consequences of the war included lack of education and employment opportunities, physical injuries from being in the military, and mental health issues resulting from combat and leading to substance abuse. Further, these effects placed veterans "at a great disadvantage" when they tried to re-integrate into society.Id. Delegate McKeon stated the hope that this provision would "give the legislature an impetus" to help veterans who had faced life-threatening events in service of their country.Id. Delegate McKeon also mentioned that veterans and their families would probably be inclined to vote for a constitution containing this provision.Id.

Committee on Style and Drafting

Proposal: "Section 35. SERVICEMEN, SERVICEWOMEN, AND VETERANS. The People declare that Montana servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans may be given special considerations determined by the legislature."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 961, available athttps://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Floor Debate

The delegates discussed the wording of the provision, choosing to delete the phrase "of all wars" from the provision because the Vietnam War was not officially a declared war. This was pointed out by Delegate Cate.6 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 1843, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol6.pdf Fifty delegates were in favor of the overall provision, while thirty-nine opposed. The motion passed and the section was adopted.Id.

Ratification

Vote

The people of Montana ratified Article II, § 35 as part of the Proposed 1972 Constitution.

1972 Voter Information Pamphlet

The Voter Information Pamphlet described this section as a "New provision allowing legislature to give servicemen, servicewomen, and veterans special treatment in the law."The Proposed 1972 Constitution for the State of Montana Official Text with Explanation (Voter’s Information Pamphlet), 7, available at: http://www.umt.edu/law/library/files/1972voterspamphlet

Montana News

Newspaper Supplement: The newspaper supplement described Article II, § 35 as a new provision directing the legislature to "show special consideration to military personnel and to veterans."1972 Montana Constitution Newspaper Supplement, Campbell Collection, available at http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library%5CMontanaConstitution%5CCampbell/1972MTConstNewspaperSupp.pdf

Interpretation

Cases

Conboy v. State

Here, the Court held that per the constitutional provision, the Legislature may repeal a statute prescribing a preference for veterans.693 P.2d 547, 552 (Mont. 1985).

Nick v. Mont. Dep't of Highways

The Court again stated that the Article II, § 35 is permissive upon the Legislature.711 P.2d 795, 799 (Mont. 1985). The opinion quotes the 1972 Constitutional Convention Transcript and notes that the section is "laudatory and suggestive in nature, and was designed to remove any other constitutional impediment that might stand in the way of preferential treatment of veterans."Id.

Femling v. Mont. State Univ.

In this case, a veteran applied for a job at a university but was not interviewed for the position. At the time, there was a statutory provision prescribing a preference for hiring veterans; however, after the veteran sued, the governor signed a repeal of the statute. The Court held that the constitutional provision is only permissive and a veteran preference is a "gratuity, and not a life, liberty, or property right."713 P.2d 996, 1000 (Mont. 1986).

Commentary

References