SCHUMAN v STUDY COMMISSION

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13771 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 THEODORE A. SCHUMAN et al., Petitioners and Appellants, THE STUDY COMMISSION OF YELLOWSTONE COUNTY et al., Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Bernard W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Jones, Olsen and Christensen, Billings, Montana Paul G. Olsen argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena Helena, Montana Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, Billings, Montana William H. Bellingham argued, Eillings, Montana Submitted: September 30, 1977 CPY Filed: .- ?97Q . "- Honorable R o b e r t M. H o l t e r , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e Haswell, d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Yellowstone County, a f f i r m i n g and d e c l a r i n g v a l i d t h e September 1 4 , 1976, C i t y of B i l l i n g s and Yellowstone County a l t e r n a t i v e form o f government e l e c t i o n s . P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 16-5101 t o 16-5115, R.C.P1. 1947, t h e Yellowstone County Board of County Commissioners e s t a b l i s h e d t h e Yellowstone County Study Commission (County Study Commission) and t h e B i l l i n g s Municipal C o u n c i l e s t a b l i s h e d t h e B i l l i n g s Study Commission ( C i t y Study Commission). Each s t u d y commission h e l d i n e x c e s s of 50 p u b l i c m e e t i n g s t o examine b o t h p r e s e n t and a l t e r n a t i v e forms of c i t y and c o u n t y governments. They i n v i t e d p u b l i c q u e s t i o n s and s u g g e s t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u n t y s t u d y cornmission h e l d f i v e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s and t h e c i t y s t u d y commission h e l d f o u r p u b l i c h e a r i n g s from Play, 1975 t o J u n e , 1976, t o e l i c i t p r e f e r e n c e s as t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l o c a l government, views on c o u n t y - c i t y government c o n s o l i d a t i o n , and r e a c t i o n s t o t h e s t u d y commissions' t e n t a t i v e r e p o r t s . Each s t u d y commission p r e s e n t e d a f i n a l r e p o r t t o t h e public. The C i t y Study Commission d i s t r i b u t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 23,000 c o p i e s o f i t s f i n a l r e p o r t . This r e p o r t included a summary of t h e commission's f i n d i n g s , key p r o v i s i o n s of t h e c h a r t e r form of government which t h e C i t y Study Commission proposed a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e e x i s t i n g c i t y government, t h e e n t i r e proposed c h a r t e r , a comparison between t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g form of c i t y government and t h e proposed c h a r t e r form, c e r t i f i c a t e s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g p l a n of government and t h e proposed c h a r t e r form, and a form of official ballot. he County Study Commission d i s t r i b u t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 26,000 s i m i l a r f i n a l r e p o r t s o f f e r i n g a proposed coinmissionera d m i n i s t r a t o r c h a r t e r form o f c o u n t y government a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e e x i s t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l c o u n t y commission form. The c i t y v o t e r s on September 1 4 , 1976, v o t e d 7,238 t o 6,268 i n f a v o r o f t h e proposed c h a r t e r form of government t o r e p l a c e t h e mayor-council form of government. The c o u n t y e l e c t o r s on t h a t d a y , by a 9,720 t o 8,776 v o t e , r e j e c t e d t h e proposed c h a r t e r form of c o u n t y government and r e t a i n e d t h e c o u n t y c o m i s s i o n form. More t h a n 1 0 q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s of b o t h t h e c i t y and c o u n t y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o n September 30, 1976, i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Yellowstone County, p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 16-5115.15, 1947. R.C.M. The e l e c t o r s c o n t e s t e d t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e e l e c t i o n s and claimed s e c t i o n 16-5115.1, R.C.M. 1947, was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . These i s s u e s were t r i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t which made f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a f f i r m i n g t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n s of September 1 4 , 1976, and t h e p r o c e e d i n g s l e a d i n g t h e r e t o w e r e v a l i d , and g r a n t e d judgment t o t h a t e f f e c t . I t i s from t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment t h a t t h i s a p p e a l i s t a k e n . This Court has repeatedly s t a t e d it w i l l not overturn f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and by t h e law. Evidence w i l l be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P.; Luppold v. L e w i s , 563 P.2d 538, 34 St.Rep. 227; Morgen Co. v . Big Sky of Montana, I n c . P.2d 1017, 33 St.Rep. 1121. & Mont (1977), . Oswood C o n s t r u c t i o n (1976), Mont . , 557 The judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t i s presumed t o b e c o r r e c t and w i l l b e u p h e l d u n l e s s c l e a r l y shown t o b e e r r o n e o u s ; t h e burden of such showing i s upon t h e a p p e l l a n t . Co., Kamp v . F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank and T r u s t ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 1 0 3 , 504 P.2d 987. W e f i n d t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w Of t h e ~ i ~ t r i C otu r t a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c I A p p e l l a n t s n e x t c l a i m t h e c i t y and c o u n t y v o t e r s were n o t g i v e n t h e c h o i c e between t h e e s t a b l i s h e d form of government and a n a l t e r n a t i v e form a s mandated by A r t . X I , S e c t i o n 9 ( 1 ) , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Instead, appellants allege t h e c h o i c e o f f e r e d w a s between two a l t e r n a t i v e forms of I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t i n e a c h c a s e t h e c i t y and government. c o u n t y s t u d y commissions p r e s e n t e d c h a r t e r forms of government which d i f f e r e d i n b a s i c c o m p o s i t i o n from any t h e n The c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e e s t a b l i s h e d e x i s t i n g form. (whether c a l l e d " p r e s e n t " o r " e x i s t i n g " ) forms of government The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found were o f f e r e d t o t h e v o t e r s a t a l l . t h e y were. The b a l l o t s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e v o t e r s were i n t h e f o l l o w i n g forms: B i l l i n g s C i t y Form Yellowstone County Form F------------------- ---7 ------___ -- t i - 1 .- -. .* I I I I I I I ( I 1 I I I I , - I - , i I . BALLOT O!i ALTERiiBTIETE ) f FORFA Of LOCAL GOYEBi4?AEIIT I -- I3 the proposed form of majority of the votes cast on the question. tion also fails. If the proposed form is option requires only a plurality of option for adoption. . - -. Vote for One. _ a 1 -- 1 For adoption of the charter form of city government proposed in the report of the Billings City Study Commission. For the present mayor-counci~form o f city government . , 2. 9 Vote for One sub-option to be included in the proposed charter form of c~ty government, it the proposed charter form ot city government is adopted. Article Ill. Sect~on 3.06, Election. The procedure tor the nomination and electfon of a!l city officials shall be as prescribed by state law. I I' . - . I I .- - . .. BALOT O$ALTER;MTWE FOfh ..- GOVER!lMEIT _ _ ! - OF _ _ __. d~ I PLEASE V ~ Y E1. D i - -. -_ - - 1 For Partisan elections. I 1 I For on-partisan elections. ' I. - - , , - - ,,, -----------J * , _ I I 1 I I I t I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 - - . I - . 1 1 FOR the zdoption of the self-government charter proposed in the report of the Ye[bwstone County Study Commission. - I I I - FOR the existing county commission form of county government 2. I I / -1. Vo16for Ons. vote for ~ n a . Sub-option to be included in the new form of government, if it is adopted. Yellowstone County * elections: . I1. I 1 I I I I - I I I I J---------, , , , , , , , ,-, L I I i I Shall be conducted on a partisan basis. _ - ' Shall be conducted on a non-paclsan basis. I I I 1 1 I I The b a l l o t form w a s a d o p t e d s o t h e v o t e r s would b e c l e a r l y required t o vote positively, t h a t is, vote - t h e i r choice for and n o t a g a i n s t o n e o f t h e o t h e r forms. That i n t h e c i t y e l e c t i o n t h e v o t e r s a d o p t e d a new governmental form, w h i l e i n t h e c o u n t y v o t e r s r e t a i n e d t h e o l d form, is the strongest e v i d e n c e t h e v o t e r s were f u l l y informed and n o t c o n f u s e d by t h e b a l l o t s nor t h e i s s u e s . B u t , a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1975 changed t h e form from " p r e s e n t " t o " e x i s t i n g " l o c a l government by t h e a d o p t i o n of C h a p t e r 1 0 6 , Laws 1975, e n t i t l e d "AN ACT TO CREATE A NEW TITLE I N THE REVISED CODES O F MONTANA DEALING W I T H LOCAL GOVERNMENTv. The t i t l e c r e a t e d by C h a p t e r 106 i s T i t l e 47A of t h e Revised Codes of Montana. t h a t s e c t i o n 47A-3-202 e t seq., R.C.M. Appellants claim 1947, v a r i e d t h e forms of l o c a l government from t h o s e under T i t l e s 1 and 1 6 , 1 R.C.M. 1947. U n t i l 1975, l o c a l governments d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h many y e a r s of growth and s t a t u t o r y change. government code a s s u c h ; T h e r e was no s i n g l e rather, the various provisions under which l o c a l governments o p e r a t e d w e r e s c a t t e r e d througho u t t h e whole Montana Code, b u t were m a i n l y found i n T i t l e s 1 and 1 6 . 1 I n d e e d , C h a p t e r 106, Laws 1975, i s p r e f a c e d by t h i s declaration: "WHEREAS, t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t e s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g l o c a l government a r e c o n f u s e d , c o n t r a d i c t o r y , s c a t t e r e d and r e p e t i t i v e , r e s u l t i n g i n d e l a y o r i n a c t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o p r e s s i n g problems * * * . " That was t h e s i t u a t i o n when T i t l e 47A w a s e n a c t e d . The t r i a l c o u r t found, and w e c o n c u r , t h a t t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of S e c t i o n 47A-3-202 e t seq. contain t h e s a m e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of form of government a s were p r e s e n t e d under t h e former c o d i f i c a t i o n . A t most, it i s a recod- i f i c a t i o n . Therefore, it follows t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandates were observed and an alternative and the established (whether called "present" or "existing") forms were presented to the electors for their choice. - Lastly, appellants argue that section 16-6115.1, R.C.M. 1947 compels the selection of an "existing" form of government and thereby violates the 1972 Montana Constitution: Art. XI, Sections 3(1) and 9(1), 1972 Montana Constitution: "Section 3(1). The legislature shall provide nethods for governing local government units and procedures for incorporating, classifying, merging, consolidating, and dissolving such units and altering their boundaries. The legislature shall provide such optional or alternative forms of government that each unit or combination of units may adopt, amend, or abandon an optional or alternative form by a majority of those voting on the question." (Emphasis added.) "Section 9 (1). The legislature shall, within four years of the ratification of this constitution, provide procedures requiring each local government unit or combination of units to review its structure and submit one alternative form of government to the qualified electors at the next general or special election." (Emphasis added.) Art. 11, Sections 1 and 2, 1972 Montana Constitution: "Section 1. All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole." "Section 2. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary." Appellants claim this is true because section 16-5115.1 states that unless the electors chose an alternative form of government, then their "existing" form of government shall be as defined by section 16-5115.1. In this manner appellants claim the study commissions and the legislature locked the citizens into a situation which prevented them from exercising their rights. We preface discussion with some of the rules which apply generally t o a l l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l inquiry. Regents of Higher E d u c a t i o n v . Judge, I n Board o f ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 433, 443, 543 P.2d 1323, t h e C o u r t h e l d : " ' * * * t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n must r e c e i v e a broad and l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p u r p o s e of t h e f r a m e r s and t h e p e o p l e i n a d o p t i n g i t , t h a t i t may s e r v e t h e needs of a growing s t a t e ; t h e p r o p e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s u s t o remember t h a t i t i s a p a r t of t h e o r g a n i c law--organic n o t o n l y i n t h e s e n s e t h a t it i s fundamental, b u t a l s o i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t i s a l i v i n g t h i n g d e s i g n e d t o meet t h e needs of a p r o g r e s s i v e s o c i e t y , amid a l l t h e d e t a i l changes t o which a p r o g r e s s i v e s o c i e t y i s subject. '" Nor c a n w e o m i t t h e wisdom of J u s t i c e O l i v e r Wendell Holmes when he w r o t e : " * * * t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s must n o t be t o o l i t e r a l . W e must remember t h a t t h e machinery of government would n o t work i f i t w e r e n o t allowed a l i t t l e p l a y i n i t s j o i n t s . * * * " Bain P e a n u t Co. v. P i n s o n , 282 U . S . 499, 501, 51 S.Ct. 228, 75 L.Ed. 482. I n Martien v. P o r t e r , ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 68 Mont. 450, 464, 219 P . 817, t h i s C o u r t h e l d : " W e e n t e r upon a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s c a s e , b e a r i n g i n mind a r u l e of c o n s t r u c t i o n d i c t a t e d by r e a s o n and s a n c t i o n e d by a u t h o r i t y and l o n g u s a g e , t h a t whenever a n Act of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly i s a s s a i l e d a s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e question presented t o t h e c o u r t i s n o t whether i t i s p o s s i b l e t o condemn b u t whether i t i s p o s s i b l e t o uphold. " I n t h e e a r l y c a s e of Brown v . Maryland, 12 Wheat 419, 6 L.Ed. 678, * * * Chief J u s t i c e Marshall declared: " ' I t h a s been t r u l y s a i d , t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s i n f a v o r of e v e r y l e g i s l a t i v e A c t , and t h a t t h e whole burden of proof l i e s on him who declares its unconstitutionality.' I t h a s been i n v a r i a b l y h e l d by t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a n Act o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e w i l l be held unless i t s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y appears beyond - r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . " a (Emphasis added.) These r u l e s were r e c e n t l y r e s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t b u t w i t h a somewhat more r e s t r i c t i v e burden f o r t h e p r o p o n e n t : "We cominence i n q u i r y i n t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s w i t h t h e w e l l - s e t t l e d r u l e t h a t when t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e i s under s c r u t i n y , t h e s t a t u t e i s presumed t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and t h e p a r t y a t t a c k i n g i t h a s t h e burden of p r o v i n g i t s i n v a l i d i t y . * * * T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n of v a l i d i t y a p p l i e s t o a l l l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t s and it i s t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t t o r e s o l v e a l l c o n c e i v a b l e d o u b t s i n f a v o r of v a l i d i t y whenever p o s s i b l e . " (Emphasis added.) Reeves v . I l l e E l e c t r i c Co., ( 1 9 7 6 ) , Mont. I 551 P.2d 647, 650, 33 St.Rep. 542. 542. W have e a r l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n h e l d s e c t i o n s 47A-3e 203, e t s e q . , t o be c o d i f i c a t i o n s of t h e v a r i o u s forms of 1 l o c a l government u t i l i z e d under o l d T i t l e s 1 and 1 6 , Revised Codes of Montana. W now h o l d s e c t i o n 16-5115.1, e 2.C.M. 1947, t o b e of t h e same v e i n ; i t m e r e l y i s t h e " r o a d map" by which o n e f i n d s h i s way i n t o T i t l e 47A. Nor d o e s t h i s h o l d i n g c o n t r a v e n e any r i g h t s of t h e c i t i z e n s under A r t . S e c t i o n s 1 and 2 , by t e l l i n g them " t h i s i s i t " . A r t . 11, XI, S e c t i o n 3 ( 1 ) f i x e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o p r o v i d e o p t i o n a l o r a l t e r n a t i v e forms of government; c e r t a i n l y it c a n b e i m p l i e d t h a t t h i s i n c l u d e s t h e power of d e f i n i n g whatever forms t h e y were t o make s u c h a l t e r n a t i v e s to. T h i s a d d s t o , r a t h e r t h a n d e t r a c t s from, t h e r i g h t s of t h e p e o p l e t o c h o o s e t h e i r own governments s i n c e t h e y now have a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e system. Moreover, t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n r e c o g n i z e s changing c o n d i t i o n s i n s o c i e t y r e q u i r i n g o r d e r l y and unhurr i e d r e v i s i o n from t i m e t o t i m e of i t s governmental s y s t e m s . T h a t i s t h e r e a l s p i r i t of it; t o s t i f l e t h a t s p i r i t by t o o l i t e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n thereunder is not i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y . Fundamental p u r p o s e s must b e t h e o b j e c t i v e and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s t h e watchword. I t i s t h e n t o t h e end r e s u l t of a l l of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , s t u d y commissions and e l e c t i o n s t o which we must a d d r e s s o u r s e l v e s . Through t h e l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t - ments, governments were reviewed and t h e i r forms d e f i n e d ; a l t e r n a t e forms were s t u d i e d , and o n e a l t e r n a t e s e l e c t e d which seemed b e s t s u i t e d t o t h e s t u d y commissions and t h e people. The p e o p l e were a f f o r d e d r e a s o n a b l e c h o i c e s between t h e e s t a b l i s h e d form and a n a l t e r n a t i v e form and made t h e i r selections. Now t o s a y t h e whole p r o c e e d i n g i s u n c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l b e c a u s e of some vague c l a i m t h a t t h e r e m i g h t b e some d i f f e r e n c e between t h e o l d and newer s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n s o r t h a t those d e f i n i t i o n s coerce s e l e c t i o n , l e a d s t o an absurd r e s u l t . C e r t a i n l y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l construction should n o t r e a c h such a r e s u l t . Dist. S t a t e e x r e l . Ronish v . School No. 1 of F e r g u s County, ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 136 Mont. 453, 348 W h o l d t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e e x i s t i n g form of e government under s e c t i o n 16-5515.1, R.C.M. 1947, n o t t o b e a n i m p o s i t i o n of any p a r t i c u l a r form of government upon a l o c a l body, b u t i n s t e a d t o be compliance w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandates of A r t . X W e affirm the decision ,' / .I/ Hon. R o b e r t M. H o l t e r , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell. /' i .d,/f%i, W conc e /f$d. : J a c k D. ~ h a n s t r o m , s i t t i n g n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e John C . Harrison 'P

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.