Former lawmakers sue over Supreme Court election changes

Personal Injury

A lawsuit has been filed to challenge a legislative proposal to change the way Supreme Court justices would be elected in Montana.

A Roman Catholic nun, a former court clerk and three former state lawmakers are among those challenging the constitutionality of a bill the legislature passed to ask Montana voters if they want to elect Supreme Court justices by district, rather than on a statewide basis.

The complaint, filed on May 6 in Butte, asks District Judge Kurt Krueger to declare the bill unconstitutional and to prevent Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen from certifying the referendum for the November 2022 ballot.

“The office of the Secretary of State has not received service of any legal documents related to the alleged lawsuit, and thus is unable to comment,” spokesperson Richie Melby said in a statement.

The 2021 bill is similar to one passed a decade earlier that sought to divide the state into seven judicial districts, with each district electing one Supreme Court justice from that district. The Montana Supreme Court found the 2011 law unconstitutional because, in part, it would create new qualifications for the office of Supreme Court justice.

This year’s proposal would not require candidates to live in specific districts, but would only allow residents of each district to vote in one judicial race. That would eliminate the right of all Montana voters to select all seven justices of the Supreme Court, the complaint states.

In the case of the 2011 bill, the Montana Supreme Court found the language and structure of the state constitution requires the election of Supreme Court justices on a statewide basis while District Court judges would be elected by district-specific basis.

Ethical rules do not permit judges to “represent” particular constituencies or interest groups, the Supreme Court wrote in 2012.

The complaint also argues the bill is an effort to change the state constitution via referendum, rather than through a constitutional referendum. A constitutional referendum would have needed a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to be put on the ballot. The bill passed 94-55 over both houses, six votes short of a two-thirds majority.

The plaintiffs are Sister Mary Jo McDonald, former District Court clerk Lori Maloney and former Democratic Rep. Fritz Daily ? all of Butte ? along with former lawmakers Bob Brown and Dorothy Bradley; Mae Nan Ellingson, a delegate to Montana’s 1972 Constitutional Convention; Vernon Finley, a former chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Tribal Council; and the League of Women voters.

Brown, Bradley, Ellingson, Finley and the League of Women Voters are plaintiffs in another complaint challenging a new law that eliminates the Judicial Nomination Commission and allows the governor to directly fill judicial vacancies that occur between elections.

Related listings

  • Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place

    Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place

    Personal Injury 12/02/2019

    The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions. The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. Enfo...

  • Court denies attempt led by Ohio to stop opioid trial

    Court denies attempt led by Ohio to stop opioid trial

    Personal Injury 10/10/2019

    A federal appeals court has denied an effort led by Ohio's attorney general to stop a bellwether trial over the opioid crisis from starting this month in Cleveland.The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Ohio didn't object when laws...

  •  Supreme Court wrestles with case on detention of immigrants

    Supreme Court wrestles with case on detention of immigrants

    Personal Injury 10/11/2018

    The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a case about the government’s ability to detain certain immigrants after they’ve served sentences for committing crimes in the United States. Several justices expressed concerns with the governmen...

How do you qualify for workers compensation in Illinois?

The Workers’ Compensation Statute protects every employee in the State of Illinois.

A victim of a work-related injury or illness is eligible for many forms of compensation including reasonable medical care required to cure or relieve the impact of the injury, lost time from work, and any temporary or permanent disability.

Illinois Workers’ compensation is a system of benefits that:

– Pays for the medical treatment and medical bills incurred by work-related injuries and illnesses.
– Pays for the lost time from work
– Pays for any temporary or permanent disabilities
– Covers nearly every employee in Illinois
– and begins the very first day that you start working for your employer.

Employers in Illinois are required to purchase workers’ compensation insurance for their employees and the insurance companies fund the payment of worker’s compensation benefits for employees’ claims. In the event of a dispute, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (IWCC, or the Commission) enforces the state’s worker’s compensation laws and protects worker rights.