Signature gathering on a petition that would cap property taxes may continue.
The Montana Supreme Court refused last week to take up a lower court decision that halted signature gathering on a petition for an initiative that would cap the rate of property tax increases, saying it couldn’t hear the case any sooner than could the District Court. On Tuesday, the injunction against signature gathering was lifted by a lower court while the case advances based upon the merits raised by the Plaintiffs.
There is no reason that the proponents of the petition cannot continue gathering signatures said Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Christopher Abbott. If signatures are found to be invalid for some reason they can simply be removed, he pointed out. He said that there is “clear inequity of preventing the proponents from gathering signatures while this case is litigated.”
The decision reverses that of a different District Court Judge in Lewis and Clark, Michael Mahon, who first imposed the injunction almost two weeks ago.
Abbot said that a “successful signature gathering campaign” is a “heavy lift,” and enjoining or delaying the process could essentially defeat it. The petition proponent must get 60,359 signatures by June 17.
Concerned about rapidly increasing property values in some areas in Montana that could automatically increase property taxes, some citizens have initiated a petition – CI-121 — that would put on the ballot, next fall, a proposal to cap the amount of property taxes assessed against residential properties. The taxpayers’ group, Cap Montana Property Taxes, wants to put tax valuations back to 2019 levels, cap rates on residences at 1 percent and limit increases in assessed valuations to either 2% or the inflation rate, whichever is lower.
Other citizens are less concerned about escalating taxes for homeowners and are more concerned that the cap will shift the tax burden from residents to agriculture and business properties. Two organizations, Montana Farmers Union and the Montana Federation of Public Employees, a union representing public employees, filed the suit to halt the process in district court in Lewis and Clark County, claiming that the state law was not followed in approving the petition. They worry that a cap on property taxes assessed against the primary home of Montana residents would threaten the funding for public schools and other local government services. The Montana Realtors’ Association, the Montana Farm Bureau, the Montana Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups have also challenged the petition.
The plaintiffs claim that the Secretary of State Christi Jacobson and Attorney General Austin Knudsen who certified the petition failed to conduct an assessment of what its impact might be on Montana businesses as required in a new state law, (House Bill 651). HB651 also requires a legislative interim committee vote, which was also not done, say the plaintiffs.
Attorneys for Jacobsen and Knudsen rebut that HB 651 applies only to statutory initiatives and does not apply to constitutional initiatives.
Last Friday, a supporter of the initiative, Bozeman attorney Matthew Monforton, made an emergency filing asking the state Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s block on collecting signatures in order to move the process along faster. Monforton and state Auditor Troy Downing were included as defendants of the Montana Farmers Union and the Federation of Public Employees suit, since they submitted the proposed constitutional initiative to the Secretary of State’s office.
Monforton said that the Montana Supreme Court is supposed to take up cases if a district court’s proceedings “is based on a mistake of law, which if uncorrected, would cause significant injustice for which appeal is an inadequate remedy.” Not having enough time to gather signatures would be a “significant injustice” with an “inadequate remedy,” contended Monforton.
Calling Judge Mahon’s earlier decision “outrageous,” Monforton claimed that the district court did not give any notice to the defendants before issuing the ruling to cease signature gathering.
Democrat legislator and lawyer, Robert Farris-Olsen argued in court on behalf of plaintiffs that signature gathering was premature if the petition hasn’t gone through the procedures required by law.
Monforton actually rejected HB-6521 as a good law, saying it gives the legislature more power than the citizens wanting to make Constitutional changes. While the law requires a committee of the state legislature to vote on the proposed initiative, their vote would not impact the petition process from going forward; it would just have to include a statement as to the results of the legislative vote.
Farris-Olsen said that the state legislators have considered voting on CI-121 but decided to await the outcome of the current court battle.
Monforton also argued that the timing of the lawsuit is incorrect. He said state law requires any challenge to an initiative be brought during a 10-day window once enough signatures are gathered and the issue is cleared for the ballot.
