Montana Constitution

Montana Constitution

XIV.8 Amendment by Legislative Referendum

Amendments to this constitution may be proposed by any member of the legislature. If adopted by an affirmative roll call vote of two-thirds of all the members thereof, whether one or more bodies, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election. If approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, the amendment shall become a part of this constitution on the first day of July after certification of the election returns unless the amendment provides otherwise.

HIstory

Sources

1884 Montana Constitution (proposed)

Article XVI, Section 13. Miscellaneous Subjects and Future Amendments: Future Amendments. Any amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either house of the Legislative Assembly; and if the same shall be voted for by a majority of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendments, together with the ayes and nays of each house thereon, shall be entered in full on their respective journals; and the Secretary of State shall cause the said amendment or amendments to be published in full in at least one newspaper in each county (if such there òe) for three months previous to the next general election for members to the Legislative Assembly; and at said election the said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the State for their approval or rejection, and such are approved by a majority of those voting thereon, shall become part of the Constitution. Should more amendments than one be submitted at the same election, they shall be so prepared and distinguished by numbers or otherwise that each can be voted upon separately.

1889 Montana Constitution

Article XIX, Section 9. Miscellaneous Subjects and Future Amendments. Amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the legislative assembly, and if the same shall be voted for by two-thirds of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendments, together with the ayes and nays of each house thereon, shall be entered in full on their respective journals; and the secretary of state shall cause the said amendment or amendments to be published in full in at least one newspaper in each county (if such there be) for three months previous to the next general election for members to the legislative assembly; and at said election the said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval or rejection and such as are approved by a majority of those voting thereon shall become part of the constitution. Should more amendments than one be submitted at the same election, they shall be so prepared and distinguished by numbers or otherwise that each can be voted upon separately; provided, however, that not more than three amendments to this constitution shall be submitted at the same election.

Other Sources

  • Elbert F. Allen, Sources of the Montana State Constitution (June 10, 1910)Mont. Const. Conv. Comm'n., Rsch. Memorandum No. 4, 7 (1971–1972).

"Article nineteen [of the 1889 Constitution], Miscellaneous Subjects and Future Amendments, is taken from both Cali. and Colo. . . . Sec. 2, 4, and 9 are the same as Colo. Art. 18, Sec. 2 and 1, and Art. 19, Sec. 2."

Wiki Author's Analysis: Based on Allen's comments, the relevant provision of the 1876 Colorado Constitution, from which the 1889 Montana Constitution's Article XIX was drawn, is provided below. Note that Colorado's Constitution limited the legislature's power to propose amendments to one article per legislative session, while Montana's 1889 Constitution permitted the Legislature to propose a maximum of three amendments per legislative session, without regard to whether the proposed amendments were restricted to a single article.

Article XIX, Sec. 2. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either House of the General Assembly, and if the same shall be voted for by two-thirds of all the members elected to each House, such proposed amendments, together with the ayes and noes of each House thereon, shall be entered in full on their respective journals; and the Secretary of State shall cause the said amendment or amendments to be published in full in at least one newspaper in each county (if such there be) for three months previous to the next general election for members to the General Assembly; and at said election the said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the State for their approval or rejection, and such as are approved by a majority of those voting thereon, shall become part of this Constitution; but the General Assembly shall have no power to propose amendments to more than one Article of this Constitution at the same session.

Wiki Author's Introduction: This proposal would increase the number of amendments that the Legislature was permitted to propose in a session from three to six.

"Chapter 315, Laws of 1967, proposes to amend this section to read as follows: Section 9. Amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the legislative assembly, and if the same shall be voted for by two-thirds (2/3) of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendments, together with the ayes and nays of each house thereon, shall be entered in full on their respective journals; and the secretary of state shall cause the said amendment or amendments to be published in full in at least one (1) newspaper in each county (if such there be) for three (3) months previous to the next general election for members to the legislative assembly; and at said election the said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval or rejection and such as are approved by a majority of those voting thereon shall become part of the constitution. Should more amendments than one (1) be submitted at the same election, they shall be so prepared and distinguished by numbers or otherwise that each can be voted upon separately; provided, however, that not more than six (6) amendments to this constitution shall be submitted at the same election."

  • Rejection of Proposed Amendment and Revision of the Amendment and Revision ProvisionMont. Const. Conv. Comm'n., Mont. Const. Rsch. Memorandum No. 2: Constitutional Amendments 1889-1971, 4 (1971–1972).

"An amendment to increase from three to six the limit on the number of amendments that may be submitted by a legislature to the vote of the people was rejected in 1968."

Drafting

Delegate ProposalsMont. Const. Conv., Delegate Proposals, Vol. I 119–20, 210–11, 257.

  • Delegate Proposal No. 27, January 25, 1972 (introduced by Delegate Mahoney): A proposal amending Article XIX, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Montana providing for a majority rather than two-thirds vote for legislative constitutional amendments, providing for constitutional amendment by the people and prohibiting executive veto of proposed amendments.
  • Delegate Proposal No. 94, February 2, 1972 (introduced by Delegate Habedank): [Proposal No. 94 proposed the alternative process discussed by the Revision Committee in its February 12, 1972 Report, discussed infra.]

Constitutional Revision Committee: Reported February 12, 1972Mont. Const. Conv., Comm. Report, Vol. I 360–64, Feb. 12, 1972.

Wiki Author's Introduction: The Revision Committee proposed amending the legislative referendum provision to provide two lengthy alternatives. The first alternative was "analogous to the method of amending the Constitution in the [1889]Constitution's Article XIX, section 9. The proposed section, however, [did] not go into the cumbersome procedural detail contained in the [1889] Constitution. This cumbersome detail [had] been a burden to often-popular Constitutional change. In one instance, the Supreme Court of Montana voided a proposed Constitutional amendment for the slight procedural irregularity of failure to follow the Constitutional directive in Article XIX, section 9 and enter the proposed amendment in full in the journals of both houses (Durfree v. Harper, 22 Mont. 354 (1899))." The second alternative provided "for a new method of Constitutional amendment. After the legislature has once passed a proposed amendment by the required 2/3 vote, it [would be] referred to the next legislative assembly. If the proposed amendment again [passed] the assembly by the necessary 2/3 vote, the amendment takes effect on the specified day. The people [would have a check] on this process, as they can, with a petition from five percent of the voters, [to] cause such an amendment to be directly voted on by the people." The Revision Committee contended that "the small percentage of required petitioners makes this check on legislative abuse extremely viable."

"The proposed articles on Constitutional revision are lengthy and at times somewhat detailed. However, the committee feels this necessary. This is the article that to a large degree determines whether this Constitution, and through it the state, will be flexible or frozen, responsive or rigid, basic or erratic. In order to hit a happy and workable medium in the dilemma of those determinations, the process for control and change of a Constitution must be clear. This clarity can be thwarted by a two-edged sword: On the one hand, there must be enough detail to spell out procedure and readily accomplish desired ends. On the other hand the detail must not proliferate and degenerate into entrapping trivia that obscures and thwarts the desired end. The committee feels this proposed article solves the problem."

Ratification

"Amendments may be initiated by the people-- a new power for Montanans--or by 2/3 of all the members of the legislature. (Art. XIV, sec. 8, 9). Under the current constitution, and eliminated from the proposal, is a restriction limiting the number of amendments that may be submitted to voters at an election to three. (Art. XIX, sec. 9)."

  • Proposed 1972 Constitution for the State of Montana: Official Text With ExplanationProposed 1972 Constitution of the State of Montana, "Voter Information Pamphlet" 5 (1972).

"This Article retains a revised form of the provision in the present Constitution on constitutional amendments and constitutional conventions . . . The revisions and the new language are designed to make it easier for the people to secure constitutional change.

The present provisions for submission of constitutional amendments to the people through the legislative process is retained with two changes. The 1889 Constitution allows the legislature to put only three proposed amendments on the ballot at each general election. The proposed article omits any specific limit on the number of amendments that may be submitted at an election. If more than one amendment is submitted the only requirement is that each one be clearly designated on the ballot so that they can be voted on separately.

It should prove easier for the legislature to put amendments on the ballot under the proposed article. The present Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of members of each house of the legislature for submission of constitutional amendments to the people. The proposal changes this to a 2/3 vote of the total number of legislators rather than the 2/3 vote of members of each house."

Interpretation

  • In Harper v. Greely<ref>763 P.2d 650 (Mont. 1988).</ref>, the Montana Supreme Court answered the question of what standard should be applied to the ballot language of legislative referendums. In initiatives and referenda begun by petition, "the statement of purpose and the statements of implication must express the true and impartial explanation of the proposed ballot issue in plain, easily understood language and may not [include] arguments or [be] written so as to create prejudice for or against the measure." The Greely Court found that legislative referenda, in contrast, are a product of the Legislature and are passed in the form of bills; therefore, their titles must be examined according to the same standard applied to other legislation. The Court brushed aside concerns about differences in deference given to the two types of referenda by stating, "that [it] is appropriate due to the difference between the two sources." The Court explained:

"There is evident wisdom in what the constitutional framers provided with respect to publication where initiatives are concerned. In the other two cases, that of convention and of legislative referenda, the proposed amendments are carefully worked over by contending parties whose governmental business at the time is to construct either a constitution or propose amendments to it. In the case of an initiative by the people, not enough adverse input occurs to justify the conclusion that a careful study has been made of the proposed amendment prior to its submission [to the people]."

The Court determined that the appropriate constitutional standard for reviewing amendments by legislative referendum is whether it "clearly expresses the subject."

Commentary

.

Launch UM virtual tour.