BLOG

Montana Democratic Party v. First Judicial District Court 

In September 2024, Montana’s political and legal landscape witnessed a significant moment when the Montana Democratic Party (MDP) sought a writ of supervisory control from the Supreme Court. The case, which centered around Robert Barb’s appearance on the ballot as the Green Party’s U.S. Senate candidate, was an essential touchpoint for the state’s electoral law and democratic process. Caitlin Boland, of Boland Aarab PLLP represented MDP. Here, we explore the case’s background, its legal ramifications, and the Court’s decision that sheds light on the balance between statutory interpretation and electoral fairness.

The Legal Battle: A Timeline

The dispute began in June 2024 when Michael Downey won the Green Party’s U.S. Senate primary election. However, Downey’s sudden withdrawal from the general election race on August 12, 2024, created a vacancy for the party. Four days later, Robert Barb, the runner-up in the primary, initiated a legal challenge, seeking to replace Downey as the party’s candidate. The Green Party’s central committee appointed Barb to the Senate race, and Steve Kelley, the Green Party’s presiding officer, certified Barb’s nomination to Montana’s Secretary of State, Christi Jacobsen, on August 19. However, Barb’s nomination quickly became contentious, as the MDP challenged the Green Party’s decision, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Barb’s inclusion on the general election ballot.

On August 22, 2024, just hours after the Green Party had filed its certification, the MDP filed a lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court. They argued that the appointment of Barb as the Green Party’s Senate candidate violated the party’s bylaws, which allegedly required a full membership vote to nominate a candidate for a statewide office. The District Court initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent Barb from being placed on the ballot, but this order was later dissolved after a hearing on August 30, 2024, which led to the case’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Dirk Sandefur, evaluated the case under the framework of Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 14, which governs the issuance of writs of supervisory control. The Court considered whether the District Court had made a mistake of law that resulted in a gross injustice or whether emergency circumstances made the ordinary appeal process inadequate.

A key aspect of the case revolved around the interpretation of § 13-10-327, MCA, which governs the appointment of replacement candidates. The District Court had ruled that the MDP failed to follow the statutory process for contesting nominations under § 13-36-102, MCA, and thus was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. The Supreme Court, however, diverged from this reasoning, agreeing with the MDP’s assertion that Barb was “appointed” rather than “nominated” and thus not subject to the nomination contest procedures under § 13-36-102, MCA.

However, despite acknowledging this misinterpretation of the statute, the Court ultimately denied the MDP’s request for a writ of supervisory control. It reasoned that while the District Court had erred in applying the wrong statute, the MDP still failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the Green Party’s adherence to its own bylaws. The Court emphasized that the MDP did not provide sufficient evidence that the Green Party’s bylaws were violated in Barb’s appointment, stating that the bylaws’ silence on the specifics of appointing a replacement candidate weakened the MDP’s case.

The Broader Implications

This case illustrates the nuanced interplay between party autonomy and electoral regulation in Montana. On one hand, political parties have the right to govern their internal processes, including the appointment of replacement candidates. On the other, those processes must comply with Montana’s statutory framework to ensure transparency and fairness in the electoral process. The Court’s decision underscores the difficulty of balancing these interests, particularly when party bylaws are ambiguous or silent on key procedural matters.

Caitlin Boland’s work in this case highlights the importance of scrutinizing not only the statutory provisions of election law but also the internal rules that govern political parties. Ensuring that political parties adhere to their own rules is a critical part of maintaining the integrity of elections, and Boland Aarab’s involvement underscores its ongoing commitment to fairness in Montana’s legal and political processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in election law. While the Court acknowledged a mistake of law in the lower Court’s analysis, it ultimately affirmed the decision to deny the MDP’s request for a preliminary injunction. While the appeal was ultimately denied, Caitlin Boland’s involvement brought to light important issues about party autonomy and procedural fairness. As the 2024 election season continues, this case will likely serve as a reference point for future legal battles over the intersection of party rules, statutory requirements, and election fairness in Montana.

For more information or for a free consultation, please visit our site.