Get A Free Consultation
(406) 315-3737 Get A Free Consultation
(406) 315-3737
Great Falls, Montana — March 12, 2026 — The Montana Supreme Court issued a significant decision on February 27, 2026, addressing the public’s ability to place measures on the ballot. In Kendrick v. Knudsen, 2026 MT 39, the Court ruled that the Montana Attorney General improperly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment intended to strengthen the state’s ballot initiative process.
The decision clarifies the limits of the Attorney General’s authority when reviewing proposed ballot initiatives for legal sufficiency under Montana law.
Readers can review the full decision here:
https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2026/op-25-0858.html
The case involved a proposed constitutional amendment known as Ballot Issue 8 (BI-8). The proposal would add a new section to the Montana Constitution recognizing a fundamental right to use the initiative and referendum process and establishing procedural protections for citizen-led ballot measures.
The Attorney General determined that the proposal was legally insufficient and declined to move it forward, concluding that it violated the Montana Constitution’s “separate vote rule.” That rule requires voters to be able to vote separately on distinct constitutional amendments.
Supporters of the proposal challenged that determination before the Montana Supreme Court.
The Court concluded that the Attorney General’s analysis was incorrect. According to the Court, the provisions within BI-8 all relate to a single constitutional change: protecting the public’s ability to use Montana’s initiative and referendum process.
Because the provisions serve one common purpose, the Court held that the proposal constitutes one constitutional amendment rather than multiple unrelated amendments.
The Court therefore reversed the Attorney General’s legal-sufficiency determination and allowed the initiative to proceed through the ballot qualification process.
The Court also addressed a fiscal statement attached by the Attorney General suggesting that the proposal could create costs for the state.
However, the official fiscal note prepared by the state indicated no measurable fiscal impact. The Court ruled that speculation about possible future litigation does not qualify as a fiscal impact under Montana law and ordered the fiscal statement removed.
The decision provides important guidance regarding the scope of pre-election review of ballot initiatives in Montana. The Court reaffirmed that the initiative process is a core constitutional right reserved to the people and clarified that multiple provisions may appear within a single amendment if they serve one unified purpose.
The ruling also builds on prior Montana Supreme Court cases addressing initiative review, including Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen.
Boland Aarab PLLP participated in the case by representing several organizations that filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the Montana Supreme Court.
The brief discussed how initiative processes in other states have sometimes been restricted through administrative review and urged the Court to consider the importance of clear limits on executive authority when evaluating ballot initiatives.
Following the Court’s decision, the initiative may now continue through Montana’s ballot qualification process. The Attorney General must prepare official ballot statements and transmit them to the Secretary of State. Supporters may then begin gathering signatures from Montana voters.
If the required number of signatures is obtained, the measure could appear on a future statewide ballot.
Boland Aarab PLLP represents clients in constitutional litigation, election law matters, and complex state and federal litigation. The firm regularly monitors legal developments affecting Montana constitutional law and the initiative process.