Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 3. JUDICIARY, COURTS · CHAPTER 2. SUPREME COURT · Part 2. Supreme Court Jurisdiction
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202 (2026)

Original Jurisdiction -- Review Of Ballot Statements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 3
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 2
  5. 3-2-202 Original jurisdiction -- review of ballot statements

TITLE 3. JUDICIARY, COURTS

CHAPTER 2. SUPREME COURT

Part 2. Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Original Jurisdiction -- Review Of Ballot Statements

3-2-202. Original jurisdiction -- review of ballot statements. (1) In the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the supreme court has power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, injunction, and habeas corpus.

(2) The supreme court has the power to issue all other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

(3) (a) The supreme court has original jurisdiction to review the petitioner's ballot statements for initiated measures and the attorney general's ballot statements for referred measures and the attorney general's legal sufficiency determination in an action brought pursuant to 13-27-605.

(b) (i) In an original proceeding under subsection (3)(a), the petitioner and the attorney general shall certify the absence of factual issues or shall stipulate to and file any factual record necessary to the supreme court's consideration of the petitioner's ballot statements or the attorney general's legal sufficiency determination.

(ii) If the parties to an original proceeding under subsection (3)(a) fail to make the certification or stipulation required by subsection (3)(b)(i), the supreme court shall refer the proceeding to the district court in the county of residence of the lead petitioner for development of a factual record and an order that addresses the issues provided in 13-27-605(3). Any party may appeal the order of the district court to the supreme court by filing a notice of appeal within 5 days of the date of the order of the district court. If a lead petitioner has not been designated in accordance with this section or if the parties to the proceeding agree, the proceeding must be referred to the district court for Lewis and Clark County.

(4) As used in this section, "lead petitioner" means an individual designated by the petitioner or petitioners on a form provided by the secretary of state.

(5) Nothing in subsection (3) limits the right to challenge a ballot issue enacted by a vote of the people.

History: En. Sec. 19, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6251, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 8803, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 51; re-en. Sec. 8803, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-214; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 540, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 481, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 100× “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Montanans Opposed to I-166 v. State, 2012 MT 168 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 13× “Whether or not the Court possesses original jurisdiction in a proper proceeding to invalidate a proposed ballot measure prior to the election (§ 3-2-202(1), MCA), I would hold in this case that Petitioners’ challenge to I-166 does not meet the Court’s own requirements for…”
Hoffman Smylie & Abbott v. State, 2014 MT 90 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 6× “Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Prior to the 2007 amendments, the statute provided for this Court’s consideration of a “constitutional defect in the substance of a proposed ballot issue[.”
MEA-MFT v. McCulloch, 2012 MT 211 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 2× “, concurring) (citing § 3-2-202(5), MCA (preserving “the right to challenge a ballot issue enacted by a vote of the people”), and § 13-27-316(6), MCA (“This section does not limit the right to challenge a constitutional defect in the substance of an issue approved by a vote of…”
Langford v. State, 951 P.2d 1357 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 4× “; § 3-2-202(1), MCA. In determining whether to exercise such original jurisdiction in any given case, however, we examine the substance of the petition in light of the statutory criteria relating to our issuance of a writ of injunction.”
M.S.R.R. v. Knudsen, 2024 MT 54 (Mont. 2024). · cites it 11× “Did the Attorney General err in concluding that MSRR’s proposed ballot issue is legally insufficient? ¶6 Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination.”
Mea-mft v. Fox (lr 127), 2014 MT 76 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 10× “This Court has original jurisdiction as provided in § 3-2-202, MCA, to review the Attorney General’s ballot statements for referred measures and the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency 2 determination in an action brought under § 13-27-316, MCA.”
MT for Elections Reform v. State of MT, 2023 MT 226 (Mont. 2023). · cites it 3× “¶5 Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination in this matter.”
Montana Consum. Fin. v. State (Mont. 2010). · cites it 50× “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 50× “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State (Mont. 2010). · cites it 50× “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Montana AFL-CIO v. McCulloch, 2016 MT 200 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 6× “DISCUSSION ¶5 The 2007 Montana Legislature revised the statutes governing legal challenges to ballot measures, authorizing this Court to exercise original jurisdiction over initiatives and referenda for purposes of reviewing challenges to proposed ballot statements for the…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(1) — 2 cases
Montanans Opposed to I-166 v. State, 2012 MT 168 (Mont. 2012). “Whether or not the Court possesses original jurisdiction in a proper proceeding to invalidate a proposed ballot measure prior to the election (§ 3-2-202(1), MCA), I would hold in this case that Petitioners’ challenge to I-166 does not meet the Court’s own requirements for…”
Langford v. State, 951 P.2d 1357 (Mont. 1997). “; § 3-2-202(1), MCA. In determining whether to exercise such original jurisdiction in any given case, however, we examine the substance of the petition in light of the statutory criteria relating to our issuance of a writ of injunction.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(3) — 6 cases
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Mea-mft v. Fox (lr 127), 2014 MT 76 (Mont. 2014). “This Court has original jurisdiction as provided in § 3-2-202, MCA, to review the Attorney General’s ballot statements for referred measures and the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency 2 determination in an action brought under § 13-27-316, MCA.”
Montana Consum. Fin. v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(3)(a) — 15 cases
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Montanans Opposed to I-166 v. State, 2012 MT 168 (Mont. 2012). “Whether or not the Court possesses original jurisdiction in a proper proceeding to invalidate a proposed ballot measure prior to the election (§ 3-2-202(1), MCA), I would hold in this case that Petitioners’ challenge to I-166 does not meet the Court’s own requirements for…”
Hoffman Smylie & Abbott v. State, 2014 MT 90 (Mont. 2014). “Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Prior to the 2007 amendments, the statute provided for this Court’s consideration of a “constitutional defect in the substance of a proposed ballot issue[.”
M.S.R.R. v. Knudsen, 2024 MT 54 (Mont. 2024). “Did the Attorney General err in concluding that MSRR’s proposed ballot issue is legally insufficient? ¶6 Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination.”
MT for Elections Reform v. State of MT, 2023 MT 226 (Mont. 2023). “¶5 Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination in this matter.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(3)(a)(ii) — 3 cases
Hoffman Smylie & Abbott v. State, 2014 MT 90 (Mont. 2014). “Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Prior to the 2007 amendments, the statute provided for this Court’s consideration of a “constitutional defect in the substance of a proposed ballot issue[.”
Montana AFL-CIO v. McCulloch, 2016 MT 200 (Mont. 2016). “DISCUSSION ¶5 The 2007 Montana Legislature revised the statutes governing legal challenges to ballot measures, authorizing this Court to exercise original jurisdiction over initiatives and referenda for purposes of reviewing challenges to proposed ballot statements for the…”
Wrong for Montana v. T. Fox (Mont. 2020).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(3)(b) — 5 cases
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
M.S.R.R. v. Knudsen, 2024 MT 54 (Mont. 2024). “Did the Attorney General err in concluding that MSRR’s proposed ballot issue is legally insufficient? ¶6 Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination.”
Montana Consum. Fin. v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(3)(b)(i) — 4 cases
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Montana Consum. Fin. v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(3)(b)(ii) — 5 cases
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
M.S.R.R. v. Knudsen, 2024 MT 54 (Mont. 2024). “Did the Attorney General err in concluding that MSRR’s proposed ballot issue is legally insufficient? ¶6 Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination.”
Montana Consum. Fin. v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(5) — 2 cases
Montanans Opposed to I-166 v. State, 2012 MT 168 (Mont. 2012). “Whether or not the Court possesses original jurisdiction in a proper proceeding to invalidate a proposed ballot measure prior to the election (§ 3-2-202(1), MCA), I would hold in this case that Petitioners’ challenge to I-166 does not meet the Court’s own requirements for…”
MEA-MFT v. McCulloch, 2012 MT 211 (Mont. 2012). “, concurring) (citing § 3-2-202(5), MCA (preserving “the right to challenge a ballot issue enacted by a vote of the people”), and § 13-27-316(6), MCA (“This section does not limit the right to challenge a constitutional defect in the substance of an issue approved by a vote of…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-202(a) — 4 cases
Montana Consum. Fin. Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Montana Consum. Fin. v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State, 2010 MT 185 (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Bernard Harrington v. State (Mont. 2010). “Nearly two weeks after filing his initial petition, Harrington filed with this Court a motion for referral to district court for development of the factual record under § 3-2-202, MCA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ¶7 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to review ballot…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.