## Facts

- Political committees opposing three 2006 Montana initiatives challenged the validity of signatures collected to place two constitutional initiatives (CI-97, CI-98) and one statutory initiative (I-154) on the general-election ballot.
- Initiative proponents used a statewide paid-circulator campaign to gather signatures.
- The district court found pervasive irregularities, including:
  - Five principal circulators submitted certifications implying signature-collection rates and travel that were facially impossible, indicating they did not personally witness signatures as certified.
  - All circulators listed false or fictitious “actual residence” addresses on required affidavits, impairing statutory accountability mechanisms.
  - Circulators used deceptive “bait-and-switch” practices that induced voters to sign multiple petitions when they believed they were signing only one.
  - The record supported widespread fraud associated with use of highly paid, out-of-state signature gatherers.
- As a remedy, the district court invalidated all signatures collected by the five principal circulators; the remaining valid signatures were insufficient to qualify any of the three measures for the ballot.

## Issues

1. Whether the proponents substantially complied with Montana’s initiative-petition statutes despite false circulator affidavits, false residence addresses, and deceptive signature-gathering practices.
2. Whether the district court applied the correct standard and burden of proof in invalidating signatures based on systemic statutory violations and fraud.
3. Whether the court could categorically invalidate all signatures collected by the five principal circulators, rather than attempting a narrower cure, and thereby remove the measures from the ballot.
4. Whether enforcement of petition statutes in these circumstances unconstitutionally burdened the initiative power or protected political speech.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
- The Court held that substantial evidence supported findings of widespread statutory violations and fraud in the signature-gathering process.
- The Court concluded the proponents did not substantially comply with statutory safeguards governing circulator affidavits and residence-address disclosures.
- The Court upheld invalidation of all signatures gathered by the five principal circulators because the defects went to the core reliability of the affidavits and made line-by-line salvage impracticable.
- The Court rejected constitutional challenges, treating the requirements as content-neutral procedural safeguards aimed at election integrity rather than suppression of political advocacy.
- The initiatives remained off the November 2006 ballot due to insufficient valid signatures after the invalidations.

## Legal Principles

- Substantial compliance with initiative statutes is measured by whether the statutes’ essential purposes—authentic signatures and integrity of the petition process—are satisfied; pervasive falsification and fraud defeat substantial compliance.
- Circulator affidavits requiring personal witnessing of signatures and truthful certification, along with accurate residence-address disclosure, function as mandatory anti-fraud safeguards; material misstatements justify invalidating affected signatures.
- When there is substantial evidence of widespread fraud or systemic irregularities, courts may invalidate large categories of signatures, and if the remaining signatures are insufficient, the measure may be excluded from the ballot.
- The constitutional initiative power is subject to reasonable statutory regulation designed to protect the electoral process; enforcing those regulations to prevent fraud does not, without more, violate free-speech or initiative rights.

## Conclusion

The court upheld removal of three initiatives from the ballot after finding systemic fraud and false circulator affidavits and addresses, concluding that such violations defeated substantial compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards and justified broad invalidation of tainted signatures without infringing constitutional initiative or speech protections.


Montanans for Justice: Vote No on CI-98 v. State ex rel. McGrath, 146 P.3d 759 (Mont. 2006)