Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District

How Do You Challenge a Replacement Candidate on a Montana Ballot? Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District Court, 2024 MT 207

Boland Aarab PLLP

In Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District Court, 2024 MT 207, the Montana Supreme Court held that the five-day election-contest procedure in § 13-36-102, MCA, applies to nominations. It does not apply to a political party’s appointment of a replacement candidate under § 13-10-327, MCA. The Court nonetheless denied the Montana Democratic Party’s petition for a writ of supervisory control. It found that the party had not shown it was likely to prove that the Montana Green Party broke its own rules in appointing its 2024 U.S. Senate candidate, so the candidate stayed on the ballot.

Key Takeaways

• Title 13 “distinguishes between a nomination and appointment.” The contest procedure the Legislature chose for nominations “does not likewise apply to the appointment of a replacement candidate” (MDP ¶ 21).
• A private party may challenge a political party’s alleged failure to follow its own rules when it appoints a replacement candidate (¶ 22).
• A preliminary injunction requires all four criteria of § 27-19-201(1), MCA, beginning with likely success on the merits; MDP did not make that showing (¶¶ 23, 28).
• Supervisory control is usually unavailable when an order is immediately appealable, but election deadlines made this “the rare exception” warranting review (¶¶ 11–12).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the Court held · Our position and how the Court differed · What changed · Statutes · When it applies · How hard · FAQ

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

At a glance

What did the Montana Supreme Court hold in Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District Court?

On June 4, 2024, Michael Downey defeated Robert Barb in the Green Party’s U.S. Senate primary. Downey withdrew on August 12, 2024, leaving the Green Party without a candidate (¶ 3). On August 19, the party’s presiding officer certified to the Secretary of State that its central committee had appointed Barb under § 13-10-327, MCA. The district court noted that no general meeting or membership vote was held (¶ 4). The Secretary of State certified the general-election ballot, with Barb on it, on August 22 (¶ 5).

MDP sued the same day, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (¶ 6). The district court denied a preliminary injunction. It held that MDP had not followed the “express and exclusive statutory process for contesting nominations” in § 13-36-102, MCA, and so was unlikely to succeed (¶¶ 7, 14). MDP appealed and also petitioned for supervisory control (¶ 8).

The Supreme Court decided three things:

1. It took the case. Orders denying injunctions are normally appealed, not reviewed by writ. But the election timeline meant even an expedited appeal “may not afford effective relief,” so this was “the rare exception” (¶¶ 11–12).
2. MDP was right about the statute. Section 13-10-327 speaks of a replacement “appointee,” a “certificate of appointment” and an “appointment,” not a nomination (¶ 18). Title 13 uses the two terms deliberately (¶¶ 19–20). The Court held that the § 13-36-102 contest procedure does not apply to replacement appointments (¶ 21). It added that MDP was not barred from challenging the Green Party’s alleged failure to follow its own bylaws (¶ 22).
3. But MDP was not entitled to an injunction. MDP had conceded that the Green Party’s “state central committee” consisted of its three officers, and those officers agreed to appoint Barb (¶ 25). The Court noted that the bylaws were silent on how the party carries out the statute’s command (¶ 27). It held that MDP had made “no preliminary showing” that the bylaw giving members decision-making on “statewide issues and endorsement of statewide candidates” applied to the appointment (¶ 28). Its timeliness argument also conflicted with a district court finding that MDP had said was undisputed (¶ 29).

The Court affirmed the district court’s result on different reasoning and denied the writ (¶¶ 30–32).

What did we argue, and how did the Court differ?

Our position. We argued three things for MDP:

• Barb was “appointed,” not “nominated,” so the nomination-contest statute did not apply (¶ 15).
• The Green Party’s bylaws reserved the endorsement of statewide candidates to the membership, so an appointment by the officers alone violated § 13-10-327(1)(a) (¶ 24).
• The appointment was untimely under the 76-day deadline in § 13-10-327(2) (¶ 29).

We asked the Court to apply the injunction factors and order Barb removed from the ballot (¶ 23).

Where the Court agreed. The Court adopted our reading of Title 13. It rejected Barb’s argument that “nomination” and “appointment” are interchangeable, and it treated the one contrary statutory reference he cited as “more likely an inadvertent conflation” (¶¶ 20–21). It also agreed that a private party can bring this kind of challenge (¶ 22).

Where the Court differed. The Court agreed with the State that the bylaw MDP relied on did not clearly apply to a central-committee appointment. It therefore held that MDP had not shown likely success on the merits (¶¶ 27–28). It declined to revisit the district court’s finding on the date of the appointment, because MDP had presented the case as turning on undisputed facts (¶ 29). With no mistake of law in the result, the writ was denied (¶ 31).

What did the decision change in Montana law?

The decision settles a question of election procedure. A challenge to a political party’s appointment of a replacement candidate under § 13-10-327 is not governed by the five-day nomination-contest procedure of § 13-36-102 (¶ 21). The Court reasoned that forcing such challenges to wait until after certification would be at odds with printing ballots on time. It would also fail to give effect to the statute’s purpose, which in part requires parties to follow their own bylaws when they appoint replacements (¶ 21).

The decision also shows how the Court handles urgent election disputes. It may accept supervisory control even over an appealable order when the election calendar leaves no time for an ordinary appeal (¶ 12).

Which Montana laws and rules apply?

• § 13-10-327, MCA: filling a vacancy after the primary and before the general election (unchanged since 2015)
• § 13-36-101 and § 13-36-102, MCA: grounds and deadlines for contesting a nomination or election (unchanged since 2009)
• § 13-1-101, MCA: election definitions. The Court cited the definition of “candidate” as § 13-1-101(8)(a). After 2025 amendments, it appears at § 13-1-101(10)(a).
• § 5-2-406, MCA: state senate vacancies, the “party nominee” reference the Court discussed (¶ 20)
• § 27-19-201, MCA: the four criteria for a preliminary injunction. It was amended again in 2025; the current text still lists the same four criteria.
• M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e) (immediate appeal of injunction orders) and M. R. App. P. 14(3) (supervisory control)

When might this decision apply to you?

• A party replaces a candidate after the primary. A voter or party that believes the replacement was not made “as provided by the rules of the party” is not bound by the five-day nomination-contest deadline (¶¶ 21–22). The challenger must still prove the rules were broken (¶ 28).
• You need emergency relief from a court. Any request for a preliminary injunction in Montana must establish all four § 27-19-201(1) criteria, starting with likely success on the merits (¶ 23).
• You need a ruling before a deadline passes. Supervisory control is extraordinary, but real urgency can justify it (¶¶ 9, 12).

How hard is it to win a writ of supervisory control in Montana?

It is difficult by design:

• Supervisory control is “an extraordinary remedy.” It requires purely legal questions and urgency that makes an appeal inadequate. It also requires one of three further grounds, such as a lower court “proceeding under a mistake of law and . . . causing a gross injustice” (¶ 9).
• The Court usually will not take supervisory control over orders that are immediately appealable (¶ 11).
• Legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, but the grant or denial of an injunction is reviewed for “a manifest abuse of discretion” (¶ 13).
• The Court “will affirm the district court when it reaches the right result, even if it reaches the right result for the wrong reason” (¶ 30). That is what happened here.

The Boland Aarab Way

Boland Aarab PLLP represented the Montana Democratic Party in this proceeding. The Court adopted our reading of the election statutes but denied relief on the record presented, and we report both halves of that result. Expedited cases like this one test whether a firm can move fast and still be precise. We apply that same discipline to serious trucking and injury cases and wrongful death claims, where deadlines and evidence cannot wait. When you hire Boland Aarab, you work directly with the attorneys whose names are on opinions like this one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a replacement candidate “nominated” under Montana election law? No. The Court held that Title 13 distinguishes a nomination from an appointment of a replacement candidate under § 13-10-327, MCA (MDP ¶ 21).

Does the five-day contest deadline in § 13-36-102 apply to a replacement appointment? No. That procedure governs challenges to nominations and “does not likewise apply to the appointment of a replacement candidate” (MDP ¶ 21).

What must you show to get a preliminary injunction in Montana? Likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of equities in your favor, and that the order is in the public interest (MDP ¶ 23; § 27-19-201(1), 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 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:

• Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District Court, 2024 MT 207 (official opinion and order)
• Montana Democratic Party v. State, DA 24-0523, Order to Dismiss (Oct. 3, 2024)
• § 13-10-327, MCA
• § 13-36-101, MCA
• § 13-36-102, MCA
• § 13-1-101, MCA
• § 5-2-406, MCA
• § 27-19-201, MCA

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