Michael Smith

@msmith750.bsky.social

Associate professor of law at University of Oklahoma College of Law. Researching constitutional law, criminal law, and legal oddities.
https://law.ou.edu/node/716

@statecourtreport.orgReposted by @msmith750.bsky.social

The Oklahoma constitution requires a public vote every 20 years over whether to hold a state constitutional convention. But there hasn't been such a vote in over 50 years. The requirement is now at the center of an inter-branch conflict, writes @msmith750.bsky.social.

@alexklein.bsky.socialReposted by @msmith750.bsky.social

Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit accepted Indiana’s claim that it could restrict media presence at an execution out of respect for a prisoner’s dignity. I’m curious how this is consistent with that, other than “the state decides what dignity a prisoner gets.”

@msmith750.bsky.social

It got quiet in the room just before a faculty meeting began this afternoon and I think most (all?) of my colleagues overheard the end of a conversation when I mentioned that I want to write an article where every cite begins with "but see."

@yeargain.bsky.socialReposted by @msmith750.bsky.social

NEW: Montana Supreme Court unanimously strikes down several provisions of a 2023 state law that significantly impaired the citizen initiative process—most significantly by imposing a $3,700 filing fee and prohibiting the resubmission of any failed measure.

Link here: courts.mt.gov/external/ord...

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Mae Nan Ellingson, Jerome Leondorf, Arlyne Reichert, Hal Harper, Bob Brown, Evan Barrett, C.B. Pearson, Carole Mackin, Mark Mackin, and Jonathan Motl (collectively, “Ellingson” or “the Ellingson Plaintiffs”) sued the State of Montana, Governor Greg Gianforte, Attorney General Austin Knudsen, and Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (collectively, “State”) in the First Judicial District Court to invalidate new laws governing the statewide initiative process. Ellingson alleged that several provisions of Senate Bill 93, 2023 Mont. Laws ch. 647 (“SB 93”), unconstitutionally diminished the people’s reserved power of direct democracy by imposing qualifications and procedural steps not contemplated by the Montana Constitution. In two rulings on separate motions, the District Court granted the Ellingson Plaintiffs summary judgment on four of their claims and denied relief on seven others. The parties stipulated to dismiss without prejudice all claims not resolved in Ellingson’s favor. Following entry of judgment, the District Court denied Ellingson’s motion for attorney fees. ¶2 The State appeals three of the District Court’s summary judgment rulings. The Ellingson Plaintiffs cross-appeal the denial of their request for fees. Restated, we consider the following issues on appeal: 1. What standard governs a Montana court’s review of a constitutional challenge to laws regulating the initiative and referendum process? 2. Does § 13-27-221, MCA, prohibiting resubmission of a statewide ballot measure for four years after defeat of a substantially similar measure, violate the Montana Constitution?3. Does § 13-27-228, MCA, authorizing legislative interim committees to vote on proposed ballot measures and place the result of the vote on the face of the petition, violate the Montana Constitution? 4. Does § 13-27-215, MCA, imposing a $3,700 filing fee on all proposed ballot measures, violate the Montana Constitution even though it authorizes the Secretary of State to waive the fee for hardship? 5. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Ellingson’s motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine? We affirm on all issues.
Older posts