Montana court voids four SB 93 initiative provisions

The Montana Supreme Court on Oct. 6, 2026, unanimously affirmed three appealed rulings that invalidated restrictions in the state’s 2023 ballot-measure law, Senate Bill 93. The court also left in place a separate district court ruling that was not appealed: a provision defining legal sufficiency is void to the extent it authorized the attorney general to review an initiative’s substantive legality.

The court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to the citizen proponents who brought the case. Three justices dissented from that part of the decision. The ruling invalidates four specified provisions, but not the rest of SB 93.

Four restrictions on initiatives

The provisions addressed four parts of Montana’s statewide initiative process. One barred a substantially similar statewide measure from being resubmitted for four years after voters defeated it. Another authorized legislative interim committees to vote on proposed measures and required the vote result to appear on the petition.

SB 93 also imposed a $3,700 filing fee for ballot proposals, with a hardship waiver. The fourth provision defined “legal sufficiency” to include review of an initiative’s substantive legality by the attorney general. The court declared that statutory language void only to the extent that it authorized this review.

The court said the provisions impaired Montanans’ constitutionally reserved power to make law through the initiative process. The decision leaves other provisions of SB 93 outside the ruling; it does not establish that those provisions are valid.

The case involved citizen sponsors of three proposed initiatives for the 2024 election cycle. The proposals were rejected after the sponsors did not pay the filing fee or establish hardship.

Appeal and fee ruling

The plaintiffs challenged 11 provisions of SB 93. The district court granted them relief on four claims and denied relief on seven others; the parties stipulated to dismiss the seven unsuccessful claims without prejudice. The state appealed three of the rulings granting relief, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees.

The state defended the appealed provisions as regulations of the initiative process. It cited interests that included preventing voter fatigue, encouraging public participation and discouraging frivolous or unserious proposals. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the three appealed rulings. The attorney general review issue was not separately appealed by the state; the Supreme Court left the district court’s ruling on that issue in place and, in its conclusion, declared the relevant statutory language void to the extent it authorized that review.

On fees, the majority accepted that private enforcement likely was necessary, but found the plaintiffs had not shown a litigation burden of sufficient magnitude to justify an award. It noted that the case was resolved through summary-judgment motions without discovery or hearings, and that seven claims had been dismissed by stipulation. Three justices dissented from the fee ruling, disputing the majority’s assessment of the plaintiffs’ burden and its application of the private-attorney-general doctrine.

The court affirmed the judgment in all respects. The four specified provisions are void under the ruling, while the denial of attorney fees stands.