Senate Bill 13, introduced by Senator Daniel Emmerich, would require that legal challenges to statewide ballot measures first go through district courts for factfinding before any appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. The bill drew opposition from civil-rights, good-government and budget groups, which said the change would add delay and expense to Montana’s initiative process.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Daniel Emmerich, told the Judiciary Committee the measure is intended to “provide more court oversight into the ballot review process,” saying district courts can develop a fuller factual record for appellate review. Emmerich said the change would make factual disputes subject to district-court factfinding and leave the Supreme Court available for appellate review if parties choose to appeal.

Opponents said existing law already lets the Supreme Court send disputes to district court when factual findings are needed. Al Smith of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association called the bill unnecessary and said the statute cited in the bill—3-2-202, subsection 3(b)(ii), as discussed in testimony—already permits referral to district court when parties disagree on facts. Heather O’Loughlin of the Montana Budget and Policy Center testified that the ballot initiative process is constitutionally protected and that adding a step would “create further hurdles for citizens in accessing their constitutional right to consider ballot measures.” Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana said, “We think Senate Bill 13 is a solution in search of a problem,” and warned it would divert scarce district-court resources to time-sensitive and high-stakes matters.

Committee members questioned the timing and potential fiscal impact. Senator Smith asked whether a fiscal note existed; Emmerich said there was none and that budgetary effects would be difficult to separate by case. Committee members also noted that an existing five-day filing requirement in the current statute would not appear in the draft and asked whether an amendment could restore a similar timing limit; the sponsor said he was willing to work with members on amendments.

No committee vote was recorded during the hearing. The hearing record shows multiple proponents and opponents presented testimony and the sponsor indicated a willingness to accept amendments to address members’ concerns. The committee closed the SB 13 hearing without action recorded.

Background: Testimony repeatedly referenced the Montana Constitution (articles cited in testimony) and the Legislature’s existing statutes governing ballot initiative review. Opponents warned that shifting routine initial factual review to district courts could shorten the signature-gathering window and disproportionately burden sparsely populated county courts.