Kendrick v. Knudsen

Can Montana’s Attorney General Block a Ballot Initiative as “More Than One Amendment”? Kendrick v. Knudsen, 2026 MT 39

Boland Aarab PLLP

Not when its parts work together as one amendment. In Kendrick v. Knudsen, 2026 MT 39, the Montana Supreme Court held 5–2 that Ballot Issue 8, a proposed constitutional right to initiative and referendum, is a single amendment under the separate-vote rule of Article XIV, Section 11. The Court also held that the Attorney General had no authority to attach a fiscal statement, because the budget director’s fiscal note showed no fiscal impact.

Key Takeaways

  • The separate-vote test asks whether a proposal makes two or more substantive changes that are not closely related, not whether it could have been drafted differently (Kendrick ¶¶ 6, 10).
  • Provisions that “operate together to define and protect a single constitutional right” are one amendment (¶ 14).
  • Pre-election legal-sufficiency review does not cover speculative questions about how a measure might be interpreted or challenged after adoption (¶¶ 21, 31).
  • The Attorney General may add a fiscal statement only if the fiscal note indicates a fiscal impact; a speculative assumption of future litigation costs is not one (¶¶ 39–41; § 13-27-226(4), MCA).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the Court held · What changed · Laws · When it applies · How hard · Related law and later decisions · FAQ

The lawyers behind this brief are the lawyers who handle yours. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

At a glance

CitationKendrick v. Knudsen, 2026 MT 39
CourtMontana Supreme Court (5–2). Opinion and Order by Justice Katherine Bidegaray, joined by Justices Shea, McKinnon, Baker and Gustafson. Justice Rice dissented, joined by Chief Justice Swanson, who also dissented separately.
DecidedFebruary 27, 2026
DocketOP 25-0858, original proceeding (petition for declaratory judgment)
ResultPetition granted; the Attorney General’s legal-sufficiency determination reversed and his fiscal statement stricken
Firm roleCaitlin Boland Aarab, Boland Aarab PLLP, counsel for amici curiae Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, League of Women Voters of Ohio, and Florida Decides Healthcare (supporting the proponents)
Read the opinionOfficial Opinion and Order (Montana Judicial Branch, PDF)

Case documents

Read the full opinion (PDF) →

What did the Montana Supreme Court hold in Kendrick v. Knudsen?

The measure. Ballot Issue 8 (BI-8) would add a new Section 37 to Article II of the Montana Constitution. It would recognize “a fundamental right to exercise their powers of initiative and referendum” and list components of that right (¶ 4). Those components include:

  • deadlines for resolving legal challenges;
  • limits on burdens on signature gathering;
  • a guarantee that ballot issues proceed “without interference from the government or the use of government resources to support or oppose the ballot issue.”

The Attorney General’s objections. The Attorney General found BI-8 legally insufficient. He argued that it made several separate constitutional changes (¶ 7):

  • court deadlines that intrude on the judicial power;
  • a limit on government resources that conflicts with officials’ authority to speak on ballot measures;
  • “statute-like criteria” that override the Legislature’s role in election administration;
  • the new fundamental right itself.

He also attached a fiscal statement (¶ 1).

The holding. The Court accepted original jurisdiction and granted the petition (¶ 2):

  1. Single amendment. Unlike the measures struck in Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen, 2025 MT 268, and Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen, 2026 MT 2, BI-8 “does not combine independent constitutional subjects.” Its provisions “are closely related components of one constitutional design” (¶¶ 12–14, 37).
  2. Judicial power. The deadlines “establish procedural parameters” but do not divest courts of jurisdiction or reassign judicial power (¶¶ 16–18).
  3. Government resources. The limit is framed as a protection against government interference with the new right, not a freestanding campaign-finance regime, and it “does not purport to restrict the right of public officials to express personal views” (¶¶ 23–26).
  4. Legislative authority. BI-8 sets constitutional standards legislation must respect. That “is the ordinary operation of constitutional law,” not a second amendment (¶ 34).
  5. Fiscal statement. The fiscal note showed zero fiscal impact. A narrative “assumption” of possible litigation costs is not a fiscal impact, so the Attorney General had no authority to attach a statement (¶¶ 40–41).

The Court ordered the Attorney General to prepare ballot statements within five days (¶ 44).

The dissents. Justice Rice, joined by Chief Justice Swanson, agreed with most of the Court’s analysis. He would have held that the government-resources restriction, which reaches campaigning, is “an altogether different issue that requires a separate vote” (¶¶ 45–50). Chief Justice Swanson wrote that the court-deadline provisions separately amend the judicial power and opponents’ rights of access to the courts and due process (¶¶ 51–64).

What did Kendrick change in Montana law?

Kendrick did not overrule prior cases. It set limits on the implied-effects doctrine from Montana Ass’n of Counties v. State, 2017 MT 267 (MACo):

  • No subdividing into the smallest pieces. Article XIV, Section 11 “does not require constitutional proposals to be reduced to their smallest conceivable components” (¶ 26).
  • Interaction is not amendment. “Nearly every constitutional amendment affects existing provisions,” and treating every interaction as a separate amendment would turn the rule into “a broad veto power over comprehensive reform” (¶ 36).
  • Limited pre-election review. The Attorney General’s review is limited to the separate-vote question and may not rest on predictions about later constitutional challenges (¶¶ 21, 31).

The Court has since cited Kendrick for the separate-vote standard in Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen, 2026 MT 87.

For a plain-language look at the ballot process, see the firm’s earlier post on the Montana Supreme Court’s ballot initiative decision.

Which Montana laws and rules apply?

When might Kendrick apply to you?

  • You are drafting or backing a constitutional initiative. Provisions that define and protect a single right can travel together. Measures that bundle separate subjects still fail (¶¶ 12–14).
  • Your measure is rejected over “what might happen later.” Pre-election review does not decide how a measure would be interpreted or whether it would survive a later challenge (¶¶ 21, 27).
  • A fiscal statement appears on your petition. It is allowed only when the budget director’s fiscal note shows a fiscal impact (¶¶ 39–41).

Proponents come to the Supreme Court directly, under its original jurisdiction (¶ 2; § 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA). The questions are legal:

  • The Attorney General has authority to decide whether a measure complies with the separate-vote rule (¶ 7).
  • The Court enforces that rule “faithfully but not expansively.” It must apply the rule in a way “that does not encumber the right of the people to amend the Constitution” (¶ 6).
  • The MACo test for “closely related” changes is fact-specific. MNC and TEI both went against proponents, and Kendrick itself was decided 5–2 (¶¶ 12–13).

Statutes and rules

Later decisions citing this case

The Boland Aarab Way

Caitlin Boland Aarab of Boland Aarab PLLP represented amici curiae Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, League of Women Voters of Ohio, and Florida Decides Healthcare, who supported the proponents. The opinion notes the coalition’s brief among those filed with leave of Court (¶ 1). Whether the question is a constitutional amendment or wrongful death claims and serious trucking and injury cases, the work is the same: read the text closely, know the precedent, and give the court a clear path to the right answer. When you hire Boland Aarab, you work directly with the attorneys whose names appear in opinions like this one.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Montana’s separate-vote rule? Article XIV, Section 11 requires that when more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each be prepared so it can be voted on separately. It guards against voter confusion and logrolling (Kendrick ¶ 6).

Can the Attorney General reject an initiative because he thinks it is unconstitutional? Not on that basis at the pre-election stage. His review is limited to legal sufficiency, including the separate-vote question, and does not extend to speculative post-adoption challenges (¶¶ 21, 31).

When can a fiscal statement be added to a Montana ballot measure? Only when the budget director’s fiscal note indicates a fiscal impact. A speculative assumption of future litigation is not enough (¶¶ 39–41; § 13-27-226(4), MCA).

Work With the Lawyers Behind These Cases

Boland Aarab is a Great Falls trial firm. The same attorneys who brief and argue before the Montana Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit handle our clients’ serious injury, trucking and wrongful-death cases from the first call. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

About Boland Aarab PLLP: Boland Aarab PLLP is a Great Falls, Montana trial firm. Its attorneys, Caitlin Boland Aarab and Samir F. Aarab, have appeared in more than 40 matters before the Montana Supreme Court and have argued twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The firm carries on the Great Falls practice Thomas E. Boland began in 1974. Meet our attorneys.

Sources:

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.