## Facts

- Montana statutes required (1) a district court judge to resign before running for the Montana Supreme Court and (2) a sitting justice to resign before running for chief justice.
- The Montana Constitution specified forfeiture of judicial office for becoming a candidate for nonjudicial elective office (and for certain extended absences), but did not require resignation to seek another judicial position.
- A group of registered voters, including individuals connected to the judiciary, filed an original proceeding in the Montana Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the statutes conflicted with the Constitution.
- The dispute arose close to candidate-filing deadlines in an election year, and the court accepted original jurisdiction due to the time-sensitive public importance.
- The State argued (1) the voters lacked standing and the case was unripe because no judge had declared or been denied candidacy, and (2) legislative power permitted conditioning candidacy for higher judicial office on resignation.

## Issues

1. Whether registered voters had standing, and whether the controversy was ripe for adjudication in an original proceeding before any particular judge attempted to file.
2. Whether the resign-to-run statutes conflicted with the Montana Constitution by adding a forfeiture condition or qualification for judicial office not authorized by the constitutional text.

## Decision

- The court held petitioners had standing and the dispute was justiciable despite the absence of a specific rejected candidate, given impending election deadlines and the public importance of ballot access for judicial offices.
- The court held the resign-to-run statutes unconstitutional and declared them void.
- The court concluded the Constitution’s express forfeiture provisions (including forfeiture for candidacy for nonjudicial office) reflected a complete constitutional scheme that the legislature could not expand by imposing resignation for candidacy for another judicial office.
- The ruling allowed sitting district judges and justices to seek higher judicial office, including chief justice, without resigning their current positions.

## Legal Principles

- When a state constitution expressly sets qualifications for office or grounds for forfeiture, the legislature may implement the constitutional scheme but may not add new qualifications or forfeiture grounds by statute.
- A constitution’s express forfeiture rule for candidacy for nonjudicial office supports an inference that candidacy for other judicial offices is not a forfeiture ground absent constitutional text to that effect.
- Voters may have standing to challenge election-related restrictions that materially affect the range of candidates available to the electorate, particularly where time constraints require prompt resolution and the question is of major public importance.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction to resolve an election-year constitutional dispute, held that voter petitioners had standing, and invalidated resign-to-run requirements for judges as unauthorized statutory additions to the Constitution’s fixed rules on judicial forfeiture and eligibility for judicial office.


Comm. for an Effective Judiciary v. State, 679 P.2d 1223 (Mont. 1984)