Initiative supporters say they didn't have time to make case
Posted on Sept. 26

HELENA - Supporters of three initiatives that were ruled invalid told the state Supreme Court Tuesday that they weren't given enough time to make their case.

Backers of the three initiatives, which a Great Falls judge said were plagued by fraud during the signature gathering process, want the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court decision.

"(We) were clearly denied due process by the tactics of the plaintiffs and by the District Court's refusal to grant time for investigation and discovery," initiative backers argued in a court brief filed by attorneys Chris Gallus and Patrick Watt. "As a result, (we) were denied proper notice to defend against plaintiffs' claims."

Constitutional Initiative 97 would impose a cap on state spending, CI-98 would make it easier to recall judges and I-154 would allow property owners to demand and receive compensation if they feel a government action has devalued their property.

Initiative opponents successfully argued in court that signature gatherers tricked some voters into signing petitions and didn't follow rules. District Judge Dirk M. Sandefur ruled on Sept. 13 that backers engaged in a "general pattern and practice of fraud and procedural noncompliance."

Supporters of the initiatives say opponents delayed filing their lawsuit until Aug. 15. The deadline for turning in signatures was June 23. Each ballot measure was certified by July 21.

Opponents will soon be filing their own arguments with the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide the issue in October.

The measures are still going to appear on ballots, which are being printed or, in the case of absentee ballots, are being mailed out. If the lower court ruling stands, election officials said they simply won't count any votes for or against the measures.

Sandefur, a Great Falls judge, found in his ruling that "it is highly probable, more probable than not, that a number of paid, out of state, migrant signature gatherers routinely" duped people into signing the measures.

In his 46-page decision, Sandefur concluded there were numerous examples of questionable techniques used to gather signatures. He said all the signatures gathered by those people must be invalidated and that the initiatives themselves also must be invalidated.

Supporters said Sandefur's decision was flawed, in part because just a few examples of tricked voters does not support a "conclusion of pervasive fraud." They also argue an abbreviated timeline for the case, set up to get the issue decided before Election Day, did not give them time to disprove the allegations.

Sandefur's ruling noted that the proponents "should have been in the best position to contact their signature gatherers and bring a sufficient number of them into court to rebut the plaintiffs' showing of fraud and irregularity. However, either because they were unwilling or themselves unable to locate them, proponents failed to present any direct evidence from the best and most knowledgeable source to rebut plaintiffs' showing."

A different judge has ruled that CI-97 is unconstitutional because it tries to modify more than one part of the constitution. That case is also being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2009 Missoulian