Montana Supreme Court hears arguments over who controls veto procedure after SB 442 veto

The Montana Supreme Court heard argument on whether the state constitution or statute controls how vetoed bills are processed after adjournment, and who may force a post-session polling to override a veto. The case, filed by Wild Montana, the Montana Wildlife Federation and the Montana Association of Counties against Governor Greg Gianforte and Secretary of State Christy Jacobson, arises from the governor’s veto of SB 442 and a district-court order directing a polling procedure the plaintiffs sought to trigger.

Why it matters: The court’s interpretation could change which branch or official has responsibility to ensure legislators know a vetoed bill exists and when polling or special-session remedies apply — and whether private interest groups may bring such claims. The case implicates Article 6, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution, Montana Code Annotated provisions addressing returns and polling, and doctrines including standing, political-question, mootness, and the proper reach of a writ of mandamus.

Counsel for Governor Greg Gianforte argued the constitution provides two lanes for vetoes — in session and out of session — and that the governor followed the in-session procedure when he returned SB 442. Dale Schoenger, representing the governor, told the court that “the constitution provides 2 lanes for vetoes, not 3, and the governor followed the in-session procedure the text commands.” Schoenger urged reversal of the district court on three principal grounds: the district court usurped legislative authority by creating a new veto procedure; private interest groups lack standing to litigate on behalf of the legislature; and the case is not saved from mootness merely…