State Ex Rel. Cashmore v. Anderson

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: August 18, 1972
• Docket: 12309
• Status: Published

Opinion

?l4 'i.'HE SUPKD.IE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE S ' I A I J ~3 P YONTAIa ex r e l . WILLIAM F. CASHMOKE, M.D. , and . STANLEY "C BURGE3,

Rela t o r ,

FOKKES'L H . ANDERSON, a s GOVERNOR O THE STATE OF MONTANA, F

Respondent.

l j)r i g i ~ i d P r o c e e d i n g s .

"ourisel of Record:

For Relators :

P a u l T. Keller a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana, P a u l T. Keller, P a u l F. R e y n o l d s , C h a r l e s E. P e t a j a and P. K e i t h Keller, H e l e n a , Montana. Mcrrow, Nash and S e d i v y , Bozeman, Montana, {dmund P. S e d i v y a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana.

Duuglas Freeman a r g u e d , H a r d i n , Montana. ?. F. Hibbs a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana,

For Pespondent :

F o r r e s t H. Anderson, Governor, H e l e n a , Montana. ' t o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Relena , Montana. C h a r l e s C. L o v e l l , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, a r s u e d . William Jensen argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana.

,;ugenc H , Mahoney a r g u e d , Thompson F a l l s , Montana. I'

R a n d a l l Swanberg a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. James E. Murphy a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana. Amicus Curiae :

John A . Layne III argued, Helena, Montana.

Submitted: July 1 7 , 1972

~ e c i d e d AUG : 18 Filed: A U G 1 8 I~ I Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court,

This original proceeding seeks a judicial determination by this Court whether the proposed 1972 Montana Constitution was approved and adopted by the electors at the special election of June 6, 1972. The essential facts are undisputed. The 1969 Montana Legislature provided for a referendum election on the calling of a constitutional convention. Article XIX, Section 8, Montana Constitution; Chapter 65, Session Laws 1969. This election was held on November 3, 1970, at which time the electors approved the calling of a constitutional convention to revise, alter, or amend the present Montana Constitution. Thereafter, the 1971 Legislature enacted the necessary enabling act for such consti- tutional convention. Chapter 1, Extraordinary Session Laws 1971. The delegates to the constitutional convention were duly elected at the election held op November 2, 1971, The convention con- vened, held hearings, debated, and eventually agreed upon a proposed 1972 Constitution to be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection at a special election to be held in conjunction with the primary election on June 6, 1972. The separate constitutional election ballot is herewith set forth: '' INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: PLACE A N "X" I N THE BOXES WHICH EXPRESS YOUR PREFERENCES. THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION AND THE SEPARATE PROPOSITIONS I S AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT YOUR POLLING PLACE. IF THE PROPOSED CONSTITCP- TlON FAILS TO RECEIVE A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST, ALTER- NATE ISSUES ALSO FAIL.

OFFICIAL BALLOT PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PLEASE VOTE O N ALL FOUR ISSUES 1. (Vote for One) FOR the proposed Constitution.

0 AGAINST t h e proposed Constitution. The proposed Constitution will include a bicameral ( 2 houses) legislature unless r m r - jority of those voting i n this election vote for a unicameral ( 1 house) legislature in Issue 2.

2. (Vote for One) ZA FOR a unicameral ( 1 house) legislature. n 2B. FOR a bicameral ( 2 houses) legislature. 3. (Vote for One) n ] 3A FOR a l l o w i n g t h e people o r t h e legislature t o authorize gambling.

a 3 B AGAINST a l l o w i n g the people or t h e legislature to authorize gambling.

4. (Vote for One) n ( 4A. FOR t h e death penalty.

48 AGAINST t h e death penalty. H u Following he e l e c t i o n , t h e e l e c t i o n returns were can- vassed b y t h e s t a t e canvassing board and t h e r e s u l t s of t h a t canvass were contained i n a c e r t i f i c a t e of t h e a b s t r a c t of t h e voces by t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e a s follows: "FOR t h e proposed C o n s t i t u t i o n . 116,415 "AGAINST t h e proposed C o n s t i t u t i o n . 113,883 "ZA, F R a unicameral ( 1 house) L e g i s l a t u r e O 95,259 "2B. F R a bicameral ( 2 houses) l e g i s l a t u r e 122,425 O " 3 ~ , F R allowing t h e people o r t h e O l e g i s l a t u r e t o a u t h o r i z e gambling. 139,382 "35. AGAINST allowing t h e people o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o a u t h o r i z e gambling. 88,743 " 4 ~FOR t h e death p e n a l t y .

"40 AGAINST t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . "~otal number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g . 237,600" Thereupon the Governor proclaimed t h e proposed 1972 Montana G o n s t i t u t i o n approved and adopted. R e l a t o r s f i l e d t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n a s an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n t h i s Court seeking a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t h a t t h e proposed 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n was n o t r a t i f i e d and adopted because 11 i.t was n o t approved by a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 of t h e p r e s e n t

Molrtana C o n s t i t u t i o n . R e l a t o r s a l s o sought a p p r o p r i a t e remedial writs ancillary thereto, The Governor was named a s s o l e defendant in r e l a t o r s ' a c t i o n . This Court accepted o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , ordered the ;rparate a c t i o n s f i l e d by t h e two r e l a t o r s c o n s o l i d a t e d , and s e t

s h e c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n f o r adversary h e a r i n g . Prior t o the Ledring an answer was f i l e d by t h e Governor, a complaint i n inicervention was f i l e d by s i x i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e Attorney General i n t e r v e n e d a s an a d d i t i o n a l respondent and f i l e d a s e p a r a t e ans- w e r , and answers were f i l e d t o i n t e r v e n o r s f complaint. In a l l , cwenty w r i t t e n b r i e f s were f i l e d by t h e p a r t i e s , i n t e r v e n o r s , and amici c u r i a e . Oral argument was heard on b e h a l f of a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g amici c u r i a e . This c a s e was e x h a u s t i v e l y b r i e f e d and argued, The u l t i m a t e i s s u e f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n can be simply stated: Was t h e proposed 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n "approved b y a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " of June 6 , 1972, a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e XIX, S e c t i o n 8 , of t h e p r e s e n t Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ? The p r i n c i p a l c o n t e n t i o n s of r e l a t o r s and o t h e r s who contend t h e proposed 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n d i d n o t r e c e i v e the r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y approval can be summarized i n t h i s manner: They contend t h e phrase "approved by a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " a s provided i n A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , of t h e p r e s e n t Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n means a m a j o r i t y of t h e

e l e c t o r s who c a s t a v a l i d b a l l o t on any of t h e f o u r q u e s t i o n s on t h e b a l l o t ; t h a t t h e quoted language speaks f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g f o r t h i s Court t o c o n s t r u e ; t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention commission, and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ~ m v e n t i o ni t s e l f a l l understood what t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l language meant a s evidencedby t h e i r o f f i c i a l a c t s ; and t h e i r own i n t e r - p r e t a t i o n can n o t be changed now a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n h a s been h e l d dnd t h e v o t e has become known. They a l s o p o i n t out t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y of s t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n of 237,600 a s t h e t o t a l number o f e l e c t o r s v o t i n g i s presumptively c o r r e c t by s t a t u t e and a s t h e r e i s nothing t o i n d i c a t e such f i g u r e i s i n c o r r e c t , t h e pre- suinption c o n t r o l s . They conclude t h a t because t h e p r o v i s i o n s t h e p r e s e n t C o n s t i t u t i o n on determining approval. o r r e j e c t i o n -tL the proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n a r e mandatory and e x c l u s i v e , and

5rcause 237,600 e l e c t o r s voted a t t h e e l e c t i o n and l e s s than h a l f ~f t h a t number (116,415) voted f o r t h e proposed 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n , i t lacked t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y approval t o t a k e e f f e c t . O t h e o t h e r hand, t h e b a s i c t h r u s t of respondents and n those who contend t h e proposed 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n r e c e i v e d t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y approval and became e f f e c t i v e according t o i t s p r o v i s i o n s can be summarized i n t h e s e words: They t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e phrase "approved by a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " means a m a j o r i t y of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g on approval. 13r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n , and does n o t include t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g only on one o r more of t h e a l t e r n a - t i v e proposals. Respondents argue t h a t t h e r e i s no v a l i d b a s i s f o r con- s i d e r i n g nonvotes on approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c m s t i - t u t i o n a s v o t e s a g a i n s t i t s a p p r o v a l , which would be t h e e f f e c t of i n c l u d i n g a s p a r t of t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y those b a l l o t s con- t a i n i n g a v o t e on one o r more of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e q u e s t i o n s which d i d n o t c o n t a i n a v o t e "for" o r "against" t h e proposed c ~ n s t i t u t i o n itself. They contend t h e f i g u r e of 237,600 r e p r e s e n t e d a s t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g i n t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t e i s incorrect; that i n f a c t i t represents the t o t a l number of b a l l o t s i s s u e d which i n c l u d e s blank b a l l o t s , t o t a l l y void b a l l o t s , p a r t i a l l y void b a l l o t s , and t h e l i k e ; t h a t such b a l l o t s cannot be counted i n determining t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n i n computing t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y v o t e , b u t only v a l i d b a l l o t s c a s t can be counted, The Attorney ~ e t l e r a l l t e r n a t i v e l y argues t h a t i f t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y means a a gnajority of the e l e c t o r s v o t i n g on any of t h e f o u r i s s u e s , then r h e evidence b e f o r e t h i s Court i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o make t h a t d e t e r - (nirlation; o r t h i s Court should use t h e i s s u e r e c e i v i n g t h e l a r g e s t number of v o t e s ( t h e approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i - t u t i o n ) a s a b a s i s f o r determining t h e necessary m a j o r i t y ; o r oiherwise those v o t i n g i n f a v o r of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n a r e denied "due process" and "equal p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws" by d i l u t i o n of t h e i r v o t e by those n o t v o t i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n i n contraven- t i o n of t h e Fourteenth Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . A t t h e o u t s e t we need n o t concern o u r s e l v e s w i t h any t e c h n i c a l l e g a l q u e s t i o n concerning t h e p a r t i e s , procedure, t h e acceptance of o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h i s Court, and r e l a t e d matters. This Court h a s p r e v i o u s l y accepted j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s cause, no i s s u e s have been r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s on t h e s e s u b j e c t s , and such m a t t e r s a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o our d e c i s i o n h e r e . Instead, w e d i r e c t our e x c l u s i v e a t t e n t i o n t o determination of t h e substan- t i v e i s s u e h e r e involved. Neither do we c o n s i d e r t h e p l e a d i n g c o n f l i c t r a i s e d by t h e Attorney General concerning t h e meaning and e f f e c t of t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t h e " t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g "

germane. The f a c t s speak f o r themselves and only l e g a l q u e s t i o n s remain f o r our d e t e r m i n a t i o n . D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e , we observe t h a t A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , of t h e p r e s e n t Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n provides f o r a s e p a r a t e e l e c t i o n where a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention submits a proposed new c o n s t i t u t i o n t o t h e v o t e r s f o r t h e i r approval o r r e j e c t i o n . W quote A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , i n f u l l , e !:he u n d e r l i n e d words being t h e p o r t i o n t h e r e o f which we a r e c a l l e d upon t o constrrie:

11The l e g i s l a t i v e assembly may a t any time, by a v o t e of two-thirds of t h e members e l e c t e d t o each house, submit t o t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e s t a t e t h e q u e s t i o n whether t h e r e s h a l l be a convention t o r e v i s e , a l t e r , o r amend t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n ; and i f a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n shall k c l a r e i n favor of such convention, t h e l e g i s l a t i v e ~ s s e m b l ys h a l l a t i t s n e x t s e s s i o n provide f o r t h e c a l l i n g t h e r e o f . The number of members of t h e con- vention s h a l l be t h e same a s t h a t of t h e house of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , and they s h a l l be e l e c t e d i n t h e same 'uanner, a t t h e same p l a c e s , and i n t h e same districts. rhe l e g i s l a t i v e assembly s h a l l i n t h e a c t c a l l i n g t h e -onvention d e s i g n a t e t h e day, hour and place of i t s i ~ e e t i n g , f i x t h e pay of i t s members and o f f i c e r s , and provide f o r t h e payment of t h e same, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e ~ l e c e s s a r yexpenses of t h e convention. Before proceeding, t h e members s h a l l take a n o a t h ro stppowt t h e c o n s t i - t u t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s and of t h e s t a t e of Montana, and t o f a i t h f u l l y d i s c h a r g e t h e i r d u t i e s a s members 3f t h e convention. The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of members s h a l l 3e t h e same a s of t h e members of t h e s e n a t e , and vacancies o c c u r r i n g s h a l l be f i l l e d i n t h e manner provided f o r i f i l l i n g v a c a n c i e s i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly. Said convention s h a l l meet w i t h i n t h r e e months a f t e r such d l e c t i o n and prepare such r e v i s i o n s , a l t e r a t i o n s o r dmendments t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a s may be deemed neces- s a r y , which s h a l l be submitted t o t h e e l e c t o r s f o r t h e i r r a t i f i c a t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n a t an e l e c t i o n appointed by t h e convention f o r t h a t purpose. n o t l e s s than two n o r illore than s i x months a f t k r t h e adjournment t h e r e o f ; and u n l e s s so submitted and approved by a m a j o r i t y of t h 7 e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n , no such r e v i s i o n , a l t e r a t i o n o r amendment s h a l l t a k e effect,"(Emphasis added). The crux of t h e i s s u e i s whether t h e underlined quoted language r e q u i r e s a m a j o r i t y of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g on approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n o r whether i t r e q u i r e s some o t h e r m a j o r i t y . R e l a t o r s and o t h e r s espousing t h e i r vi.ew contend t h a t t h e quoted c o n s t i t u t i o n a l language i s c l e a r and ~ 7 emust d e c l a r e what

i t p l a i n l y says. They argue t h a t t h e use of d i f f e r e n t language i n v a r i o u s e l e c t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n s 8 and 9 of A r t i c l e XIX i n d i c a t e s an i n t e n t by t h e framers of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n t o r e q u i r e something more than a simple m a j o r i t y t o approve a proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n submitted by a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention. They con- c l u d e t h a t a m a j o r i t y of t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g on any of t h e f o u r q u e s t i o n s on t h e b a l l o t i s r e q u i r e d t o approve the proposed 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n .

W n o t e t h a t a l l p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e a c t of v o t i n g e c o n s i s t s of marking a v a l i d b a l l o t t h a t i s deposited i n t h e b a l l o t box and counted i n t h e e l e c t i o n . Goodell v. J u d i t h Basin County, 70 Mont. 222, 224 P. 1110; Maddox v. Board of S t a t e Canvassers, 116 Mont, 217, 149 P. 2d 112, s t a n d f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t v o t i n g i s t h e a f f i r m a t i v e a c t of marking t h e b a l l o t and d e p o s i t i n g i t

i n t h e b a l l o t box i n conformity w i t h t h e e l e c t i o n laws. Neither s i g n i n g t h e r e g i s t r y of v o t e r s , n o r b e i n g i s s u e d a b a l l o t , n o r having o n e ' s name appear on t h e p o l l book i s enough, s t a n d i n g a l o n e , t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e a c t of v o t i n g . The i s s u e b e f o r e us i s a narrow one b u t i t s s o l u t i o n i s noc simple. W recognize t h a t t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t and opposing e Lines of a u t h o r i t y i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s having t h e same o r s i m i l a r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l language. E a r l i e r cases a r e collected i n the Annotation appearing a t 131 A.L.R. 1382. For examples of l a t e r cases see: S t a t e ex r e l . W i t t v. S t a t e Canvassing Board, 78 N.M. 582, 437 P.2d 143; I n r e Todd, 208 Ind. 168, 193 N , E . 865; S t o l i k e r v . Waite, 359 Mich. 65, 101 N.W.2d 299. These.cases are c i t e d merely t o i n d i c a t e t h e two c o n f l i c t i n g l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y b u t a r e n o t r e l i e d upon o r d e t e r m i n a t i v e of our d e c i s i o n i n t h e instant case, W p r e f e r t o look t o Montana s t a t u t e s and c a s e s e f o r guidance i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e meaning of our own c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . provisions. The r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e meaning of p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e Montana Constitution. S t a t e ex r e l . Gleason v. S t e w a r t , 57 Mont, 397, 188 P. 904; Vaughn & Ragsdale C0.v. S t a t e Board, 109 Mont. 5 2 , 96 P.2d 420. I n c o n s t r u i n g t h e meaning of a s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t of t h e framers, i . e . , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , i s paramount. Section 93-401-16, R.C.M. 1947, I n determining l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , r e s o r t must f i r s t be made t o t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words used. Dunphy v . Anaconda Co., 151 Mont.76, 438 P.2d 660, and Montana cases c i t e d therein. I n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i s simply t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i s i n terms o r substance contained t h e r e i n , n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been omitted nor t o omit what h a s been i n s e r t e d . S e c t i o n 93-401-15, R.C,M. 1947, A s t a t u t e must be r e a d and considered i n i t s e n t i r e t y and t h e

L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t may n o t be determined from t h e wording of any p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e , b u t only from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e whole, Home Bldg. & Loan v. Bd. of E q u a l i z a t i o n , 141 Mont. 113, 375 P.2d 312. Applying t h e s e r u l e s t o t h e quoted c o n s t i t u t i o n a l language, a L i t e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n would seem t o support r e l a t o r s . The quoted II language speaks of approval by a m a j o r i t y of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t the election". But v o t i n g on what? The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l language does n o t e x p r e s s l y answer t h i s . However, t h e substance of t h e language of t h e e n t i r e p r o v i s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t r e f e r s t o v o t i n g on approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n , and i t i s t o t h a t q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e quoted language i s d i r e c t e d . There i s a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e framers had i n mind a m u l t i p l e i s s u e b a l l o t wherein c o n t i n g e n t a l t e r n a t i v e i s s u e s would b e submitted t o t h e e l e c t o r s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e primary q u e s t i o n

o f approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f , The b e s t t h a t can b e s a i d f o r r e l a t o r s i s t h a t t h e quoted language i s ambiguous when r e a d i n connection w i t h t h e e n t i r e 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 l a t i n g t o submission of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n t o the e l e c t o r s . W a r e mindful of t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t when a s t a t u t e e is e q u a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e of two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , one i n f a v o r of n d t u r a l r i g h t and t h e o t h e r a g a i n s t i t , t h e former i s t o be adopted. S e c t i o n 93-401-23, R.C,M. 1947. Majority r u l e i-s a rratural r i g h t and fundamental t e n e t of government i n a democracy, and only the s t r o n g e s t evidence t h a t something more than a m a j o r i t y , i-.e., an e x t r a o r d i n a r y m a j o r i t y , i s r e q u i r e d i n a given s i t u a t i o n w i l l suffice. Here no such evidence e x i s t s . Nor, i n our view, i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n language employed in d i f f e r e n t e l e c t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of A r t i c l e X I X c o n t r o l l i n g , o r i n d i c a t i v e of an i n t e n t by t h e framers of our C o n s t i t u t i o n t o r e q u i r e approval of a proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n by an e x t r a o r d i n a r y ,xajority. The f i r s t p a r t of S e c t i o n 8 r e l a t i n g t o c a l l i n g a 11 d c ~ n s t i t u t i o n a lconvention r e q u i r e s a referendum v o t e by a majority s f t h o s e v o t i n g on t h e question"; S e c t i o n 9 d e a l i n g w i t h submis- ;ion of i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e q u i r e s referendum t o t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s a~xdapproval II by a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g thereon", That p a r t of S e c t i o n 8 we a r e c a l l e d upon t o c o n s t r u e r e q u i r e s submission of t h e proposed 11 constitution t o the electors a t an e l e c t i o n appointed by t h e convention f o r t h a t purpose, n o t l e s s than two nor more than s i x months a f t e r t h e adjournment t h e r e o f " and approval by "a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " . The reason f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n language between t h e s e t h r e e p r o v i s i o n s i s readi-ly apparent. The referendum t o t h e v o t e r s on t h e c a l l i n g of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention i s normally h e l d a t a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n a s was done h e r e ; consequently, t h e phrase II requiring a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g on t h e question" was employed t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l referendum q u e s t i o n from o t h e r g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n i s s u e s . The language of S e c t i o n 9 m:el.ating t o submission t o t h e e l e c t o r s of i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l amendments proposed by the l e g i s l a t u r e must be a t a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n where up t o t h r e e such amendments can be submitted a t t h e II same e l e c t i o n , thus t h e language approved by a m a j o r i t y of those v o t i n g thereon" i s used. The language of S e c t i o n 8 , t h a t we mst construe --- II a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e

e l e c t i o n " was used because a s e p a r a t e e l e c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d f o r dpproval o r r e j e c t i o n of a c o n s t i t u t i o n proposed by a c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l convention and t h e r e i s no need t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between approval o r r e j e c t i o n of a proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n a t such s e p a r a t e d l e c t i o n and i s s u e s a t some o t h e r e l e c t i o n h e l d a t t h e same t i m e . Accordingly, t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e language employed by t h e tramers of our C o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h e d i f f e r e n t e l e c t i o n p r o v i s i o n s qf S e c t i o n s 8 and 9 o f A r t i c l e X I X a r e no evidence of a d i f f e r i n g

i l ~ i l e n ton t h e p a r t of t h e framers, b u t a r e t h e r e s u l t of i n h e r e n t ct311stitutional d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e e l e c t i o n s themselves, which L ~ L urn t r e q u i r e s d i f f e r e n t language. F i n a l l y , iL t h e framers 0.2 Cunstitution had intei1Jec3

CL) r e q u i r e an e x t r a o r d i n a r y m a j o r i t y f o r approval of a proposed t : o n s t i t u t i o n submitted by an e l e c t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention, ':hey c o u l d e a s i l y have s a i d s o . Our C o n s t i t u t i o n c o n t a i n s s e v e r a i

p r o v i s i o n s r e q u i r i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y m a j o r i t i e s , b u t wherever such requirement i s imposed t h e language i s l o u d , c l e a r and unaml~iguous. Examples of such p r o v i s i o n s a r e : Changing t h e s e a t of government c e q u i r i n g "a v o t e of t w o - t h i r d s of a l l t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s af the state", (Article X, Section 3 ) ; overriding the governor's v e t o of a l e g i s l a t i v e a c t which r e q u i r e s t h a t such a c t s h a l l "be r e p a s s e d by t w o - t h i r d s of b o t h houses" i n o r d e r t o become 2 E f e c t i v e , ( A r t i c l e V , S e c t i o n 40) and a s p e c i f i c d e t a i l e d pro- zedure t h e r e f o r ( A r t i c l e VII, S e c t i o n 1 2 ) ; submission by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e e l e c t o r s t h e q u e s t i o n of c a l l i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l II convention which r e q u i r e s a v o t e of t w o - t h i r d s of t h e members e l e c t e d t o each house", ( A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 ) ; submission by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e e l e c t o r s of i n d i v i d u a l l e g i s l a t i v e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments which r e q u i r e a v o t e of " t w o - t h i r d s of rile members e l e c t e d t o each house", (Article XIX, Section 9 ) . W must a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t of r e q u i r i n g an e x t r a - e ~ r d i n a r ym a j o r i t y i n an e l e c t i o n by c o u n t i n g t h e e l e c t o r s who ~ o t e i s s u e s o t h e r t h a n approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed on ;onstitution. I n 18 c o u n t i e s of t h i s s t a t e more e l e c t o r s voted

proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n , I f we i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l pro- s i s i o n i n q u e s t i o n a s r e q u i r i n g t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h e s e n o n v o t e r s ? > ~ it h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n i n determining t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y :or i t s a p p r o v a l , we a r e i n e f f e c t h o l d i n g t h a t t h e framers of our

d o n s t i t u t i o n i n t e n d e d t o g i v e such a b s t a i n e r s t h e s t a t u s of lectors v o t i n g a g a i n s t t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n . T h i s we r e f u s e t o do i n t h e absence of a c l e a r and unmistakable requirement of

an e x t r a o r d i n a r y m a j o r i t y v o t e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , we must c o n s i d e r t h e p o l i c y and philosophy o f government contained i n our C o n s t i t u t i o n a s enunciated i n

numerous c a s e s i n c l u d i n g T i n k e l v . G r i f f i n , 26 Mont, 426, 431, 68 P. 859. There t h e Court s a i d : 11The e x p r e s s i o n ' m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s t h e r e o f v o t i n g a t an e l e c t i o n , ' e t c . , c l e a r l y means a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e who vote, of a l l of t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e county, o r of t h o s e who v o t e upon any o t h e r i s s u e , a t t h e same o r some o t h e r time." (Emphasis added). The philosophy of our C o n s t i t u t i o n was f u r t h e r explained i n t h i s language from T i n k e l : "It i s t h e t h e o r y of our government t h a t t h o s e e l e c t o r s c o n t r o l p u b l i c a f f a i r s who t a k e a s u f f i - c i e n t i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n t o g i v e expression t o t h e i r views. Those who r e f r a i n from such e x p r e s s i o n a r e deemed t o y i e l d acquiescence, "In a r e c e n t c a s e t h e c o u r t of a p p e a l s of Kentucky, having under c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s i m i l a r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ; ~ r o v i s i o n , s a i d : '1t i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e i n ,>ur system of government t h a t i t s a f f a i r s a r e con- t r o l l e d by t h e consent of t h e governed, and, t o t h a t end, i t i s regarded a s j u s t and wise t h a t a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e who a r e i n t e r e s t e d s u f f i c i e n t l y L O assemble a t p l a c e s provided by law f o r t h e pur- pose s h a l l , by t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e i r o p i n i o n , d i r e c t he manner i n which i t s a f f a i r s s h a l l be conducted. When m a j o r i t i e s a r e spoken o f , i t i s meant a m a j o r i t y a f those who f e e l an i n t e r e s t i n t h e government, and who have opinions and wishes a s t o how i t s h a l l be conducted, and have t h e courage t o e x p r e s s them. L t h a s n o t been t h e p o l i c y of our government, i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h e wishes of t h e people, t o count t h o s e who do n o t t a k e s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t i n i t s a f f a i r s t o v o t e upon q u e s t i o n s submitted t o them, It i s a rilajority of t h o s e who a r e a l i v e and a c t i v e , and ex- p r e s s t h e i r o p i n i o n , who d i r e c t t h e a f f a i r s of t h e government, n o t t h o s e who a r e s i l e n t and e x p r e s s no opinion i n t h e manner provided by law, i f they have any. Before r e a c h i n g a conclusion t h a t those who framed our fundamental law intended t o change a w e l l - s e t t l e d p o l i c y by allowing t h e v o t e r who i s s i l e n t dnd e x p r e s s e s no opinion on a p u b l i c q u e s t i o n t o be counted, t h e same a s t h e one who t a k e s an i n t e r e s t i n 3nd v o t e s upon i t , we should be s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e Language used c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s such a purpose, t (Montgomery County F i s c a l Court v . Trimble, 47 SOW. !73, 42 L.R.A. 738.)" This Court r e a f f i r m e d t h e r u l e of T i n k e l i n Morse v. Srasiitr Sounty, 44 Mont. 78, 119 P. 286. W e c o n s i d e r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l philosophy expressed t h e r e i n concerning t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n a s v a l i d today a s i t was when * r i g i n a l l y expressed t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s ago. W extend t h a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l philosophy t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i n v o l v i n g A r t i c l e the i s sue X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , a n d / m u l t i p l e / e l e c t i o n h e r e involved. Here, we a r e simply n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e framers of our C o n s t i t u t i o n intended t o r e q u i r e more than a simple m a j o r i t y v o t e on approval of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n .

Accordingly, we hold t h a t "approval by a m a j o r i t y of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n ' ' a s used i n A r t i c l e XIX, S e c t i o n 8 , of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n means approval by a m a j o r i t y of t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s c a s t i n g v a l i d b a l l o t s on t h e q u e s t i o n of approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . W hold t h a t i t does n o t r e f e r t o o r i n c l u d e t h o s e e l e c t o r s who e f a i l e d t o e x p r e s s an opinion by a v o t e on t h a t i s s u e . The S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t e shows 116,415 v o t e s i n f a v o r of t h e pro- posed c o n s t i t u t i o n and 113,883 v o t e s a g a i n s t t h e proposed con- s t i t u t i o n and no one contends t h e s e f i g u r e s a r e i n c o r r e c t , As t h e s e f i g u r e s c a r r y a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s by s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 93-1301-7(15), R.C,M, 1947, and a s t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e otherwise, we h o l d t h a t t h e proposed 1972 Montana Con- s t i t u t i o n was approved by t h e r e q u i r e d m a j o r i t y and t h e over nor's proclamation t h e r e o f was c o r r e c t . Even under r e l a t o r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement i n q u e s t i o n which we e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t , r e l a t o r s s t i l l cannot p r e v a i l . R e l a t o r s would r e q u i r e an e x t r a o r d i n a r y m a j o r i t y t o approve t h e proposed 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , i . e . , a r i ~ a j o r i t yof t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e s p e c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e l e c t i o n on any i s s u e . The S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t e of t h e a b s t r a c t of v o t e s a s determined by t h e s t a t e 11 canvassing board shows T o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g . 237,600" which r e l a t o r s contend must be accepted a s c o r r e c t by s t a t u t e . This f i g u r e i s c l e a r l y i n c o r r e c t even under r e l a t o r s ' i n t e r p r e - t d t i o n of A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 .

The S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e by l e t t e r d a t e d June 2, 1972, i - n s ~ i u c t e d h e county c l e r k s and r e c o r d e r s of each county t o t ' ' e n t e r t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s who a r e l i s t e d on t h e p o l l books f o r t h e s e p a r a t e e l e c t i o n on t h e proposed c ' o n s t i t u t i o n on t h e f r o n t of t h e a b s t r a c t book f o r t h a t e l e c t i o n " . The a f f i d a v i t of t h e members of t h e s t a t e canvassing board i n d i c a t e s t h a t the phrase " ' T o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g ' , a s used i n s a i d

canvass and c e r t i f i c a t e , r e f e r s t o t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s dppearing a t t h e p o l l s and r e c e i v i n g b a l l o t s , p l u s t h e number V J e~l e c t o r s r e c e i v i n g and r e t u r n i n g absentee b a l l o t s . " The ~ 2 f i d a v i tof t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e i s t o t h e same e f f e c t , An " e l e c t o r " i s a person p o s s e s s i n g t h e l e g a l q u a l i f i c a - 5 ~ ' ~h a t e n t i t l e him t o v o t e . t s S t a t e ex r e l . Lang v . F u r n i s h , $3 Mont. 28, 134 P, 297. The word "voting" means t h e a f f i r m a t i v e ac; of marking o n e ' s b a l l o t p r o p e r l y and d e p o s i t i n g i t i n t h e bdLlot box i n conformity w i t h t h e e l e c t i o n laws. Goodell v .

~ d i t h Basin County, 70 Mont. 222, 224 P. 1110; I4addox v. Board

3 , of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n means t h o s e persons e n t i t l e d t o v o t e who c a s t a p r o p e r l y marked b a l l o t which i s counted i n t h e election. E l e c t o r s c a s t i n g blank b a l l o t s , u n i n t e l l i g i b l e b a l l o t s , II f u u l e d , v o i d , o r i l l e g a l b a l l o t s a r e n o t included a s electors v v t i n g i n t h e e l e c t i o n " because t h e i r b a l l o t s a r e n o t e n t i t l e d to be counted i n t h e e l e c t i o n . See s e c t i o n 23-4002(4) and ; e c t i o n 23-4003(5), R.C.M. 1947; Peterson v. B i l l i n g s , 109 Mont. 390, 96 P.2d 922; Heyfron v . Mahoney, 9 Mont. 497, 24 P. 93. L'hus, i t i s n o t t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s appearing a t t h e p o l l s and r e c e i v i n g b a l l o t s a s l i s t e d i n t h e p o l l books t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s the t o t a l number of " e l e c t o r s v o t i n g i n the e l e c t i o n " , b u t t h e i d i d 1 number of e l e c t o r s c a s t i n g properly rnarked b a l l o t s t h a t

I r e counted i n t h e e l e c t i o n . Accordingly, t h e f i g u r e of 237,600 !abeled " t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " on t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t e i s demonstrably i n c o r r e c t , and the disputable s t a t u t o r y presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s of such f i g u r e (Section 93-1301-7(15)) must y i e l d t o t h e f a c t s . What t h e n , under r e l a t o r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , i s t h e c o r r e c t f i g u r e on t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s voting a t the e l e c t i o n ? W can make t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e e ~ u a t e r i a l sb e f o r e us. I f we t a k e t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s wha c a s t b a l l o t s t h a t were counted on t h e i s s u e r e c e i v i n g t h e i a r g e s t t o t a l v o t e , t h i s should approximate t h e t o t a l number of electors voting i n the election. On a s t a t e w i d e b a s i s , t h e i s s u e of approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n r e c e i v e d the h i g h e s t t o t a l . v o t e , 116,415 "for" and 113,883 "against", or t o t a l v o t e of 230,298. However, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s p r i n t e d r e p o r t of t h e sificial canvass, county by county, d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e e l e c t o r s i n 18 of Montana's 56 c o u n t i e s c a s t a h i g h e r t o t a l v o t e on t h e gambling i s s u e than on t h e i s s u e of approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n , I n t h o s e 18 c o u n t i e s 290 more e l e c t o r s c a s t v a l i d v o t e s t h a t were counted on t h e gambling i s s u e than upon t h e i s s u e of t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n ; no o t h e r i s s u e on t h e b a l l o t i n t h e s p e c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e l e c t i o n r e c e i v e d more ~ o t a v o t e s cast and counted i n any county, w i t h t h i s exception. l

l'hese 290 e l e c t o r s must b e added t o t h e s t a t e w i d e t o t a l of e i e c t o r s v o t i n g on approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i - t u t i o n (230,298) i n o r d e r t o g e t t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o r i n g i n t h e e l e c t i o n , 230,588. As more than one-half of t h i s 230,588 f i g u r e voted "for" t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n (116,415), "a majority of the electors voting at the election" voted for the proposed 1972 Montana Constitution, even under relatorsf interpretation of Article XIX, Section 8, of ~ontana's present Cunstitution. The other issues raised not being germane to our decision herein they need not be discussed nor determined in this opinion,

Associate Justice

W Concur: e

- I _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-Chief Justice

................................. Associate Justices. Xr. Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n and M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles dissenting:

W dissent. e The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n s t a t e s h he c r u x of t h e i s s u e i s whether t h e u n d e r l i n e d quoted language r e q u i r e s a m a j o r i t y of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g on approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed c o n s t i - t u t i o n o r whether i t r e q u i r e s some o t h e r m a j o r i t y . " W would e h o l d t h a t t h e quoted language "a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " , means j u s t what i t s a y s . The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n goes on t o s a y h here i s a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e framers had i n mind a m u l t i p l e i s s u e b a l l o t wherein c o n t i n g e n t a l t e r n a t i v e i s s u e s would be submitted t o t h e e l e c t o r s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e primary q u e s t i o n of approval o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e proposed constitution i t s e l f . The b e s t t h a t can be s a i d f o r r e l a t o r s i s t h a t t h e quoted language i s ambiguous when r e a d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e n t i r e 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 l a t i n g t o submission rI o f t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n t o t h e e l e c t o r s .

The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n t h e n goes on t o s a y t h e language i s not ambiguous b u t i s c l e a r , and t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d i f - f e r e n c e i n language between t h e t h r e e p r o v i s i o n s i n A r t i c l e X I X , II S e c t i o n s 8 and 9 of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n i s r e a d i l y apparent". T h i s i s t h e f o u r t h c a s e t o be b e f o r e t h i s Court i n v o l v i n g izhe e f f o r t t o amend, r e v i s e , o r a l t e r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s

state. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and language of each of t h e p r e v i o u s t h r e e c a s e s was c o n s i s t e n t . But now, we d e p a r t from t h a t c o n s i s t e n c y . The t h r e e previous a r e : 42nd Leg. Assembly v . Lennon, 156 Mont. 416, 4 2 7 , 431, 481 P.2d 330; Mahoney v , Murray, Mon t . , 496 P.2d 1120, 29 St.Rep. 289; S t a t e ex r e l . Kvaalen v. G r a y b i l l ,

--A Mont . , 496 P.2d 1127, 29 S t . Rep. 313. I n Lennon, M. J u s t i c e Haswell had t h i s t o s a y : r It kt issue is whether the phrase requiring that constitutional delegates be I elected in the same s members of the house of representatives appearin /~rticleXIX, section 8 of the Constitution nanner refers only to constitutional requirements for the dlection of state representatives, or whether it en- compasses both constitutional and statutory require- ~ientsfor election of state representatives. We hold chat the phrase 1 elected in the same manner' means ~xactlywhat it plainly says---- that constitutional delegates are required to be elected by the same llection procedures applicable to election of members df the house of representatives without limitation as to the source of such election procedures be they con- stitutional or statutory, Had the framers of the Constitution intended to limit this phrase to constitu- tional requirements only, they would hardly have used this particular language knowing that the Constitution contained only broad requirements for elections in general without specific constitutional procedures applicable to election of representatives. By their language coupled with the absence of specific consti- tutional procedures applicable to the election of representatives, the framers of our Constitution must have intended the requirement to apply to statutory election procedures for representatives to be subse- quently enacted by the legislature and amended from time to time. We remain unimpressed with the applic- ability to Montana of three cited cases from other states to the contrary: Livingston v. Ogilvie, 43 I11.2d 9, 250 N.E.2d 138; Baker v. Moorhead, 103 Neb. 811, 174 il.W. 430; and In re Opinion of the Justices, 76 N.H. 586, 79 A. 29. These holdings are understandable under their particular state history and their particular constitu- tional provisions, but their application to Montana in the light of its history and constitutional provisions is entirely unwarranted." And further: "A further observation, albeit unsolicited, is that since the referendum uses the language 1 revise, alter, or amend the constitution' it must have been contem- plated that the work of the convention might be partial or total and that the individual parts might be sub- mitted to the people. Therefore each Article might be separately submitted. I I Yet here, in the majority opinion, Mr. Justice Haswell states that there is nothing to indicate the framers had in mind a multiple issue ballot. He must have forgotten what he wrote in Lennon. Also, he must have ignored the plain meaning of the language in Sections 8 and 9, Article X.IX. Following is our view of the law and our resolution of the problem at issue. The issue is a narrow one but the solution is difficult. A r t i c l e X I X , Section 8 , s t a t e s : rI The l e g i s l a t i v e assembly may a t any t i m e , by a v o t e of t w o - t h i r d s of t h e members e l e c t e d t o each house, submit t o t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e s t a t e t h e q u e s t i o n whether t h e r e s h a l l be a convention t o r e v i s e , a l t e r , o r amend t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n ; and i f a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n s h a l l d e c l a r e i n f a v o r of such convention, t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly s h a l l a t i t s n e x t s e s s i o n provide f o r t h e c a l l i n g t h e r e o f . The number of members of t h e con- v e n t i o n s h a l l be t h e same a s t h a t of t h e house of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , and t h e y s h a l l be e l e c t e d i n t h e same manner, a t t h e same p l a c e s , and i n t h e same d i s t r i c t s . The l e g i s l a t i v e assembly s h a l l i n t h e a c t c a l l i n g t h e convention d e s i g n a t e t h e day, hour and p l a c e of i t s meeting, f i x t h e pay of i t s members and o f f i c e r s , and provide f o r t h e payment of t h e same, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y expenses of t h e convention. Before proceeding, t h e members s h a l l t a k e an o a t h t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s and of t h e s t a t e of Montana, and t o f a i t h f u l l y d i s c h a r g e t h e i r d u t i e s a s members of t h e convention. The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of members s h a l l be t h e same a s of t h e members of t h e s e n a t e , and vacan- c i e s o c c u r r i n g s h a l l be f i l l e d i n t h e manner provided f o r f i l l i n g v a c a n c i e s i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly. Said convention s h a l l meet w i t h i n t h r e e months a f t e r such e l e c t i o n and p r e p a r e such r e v i s i o n s , a l t e r a t i o n s o r amendments t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a s may be deemed n e c e s s a r y , which s h a l l be submitted t o t h e e l e c t o r s f o r t h e i r r a t i f i c a t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n a t an e l e c t i o n appointed by t h e convention f o r t h a t purpose, n o t l e s s t h a n two n o r more t h a n s i x months a f t e r t h e adiournment t h e r e o f ; and u n l e s s s o submitted - and q r o v e d by a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n , no such r e v i s i o n , a l t e r a t i o n o r amendment s h a l l take effect," (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) A r t i c l e XIX, Section 9 , s t a t e s : "Amendments t o t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n may be proposed i n e i t h e r house of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly, and i f t h e same s h a l l be voted f o r by t w o - t h i r d s of t h e members e l e c t e d t o each house, such proposed amendments, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a y e s and nays of each house t h e r e o n , s h a l l be e n t e r e d i n f u l l on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j o u r n a l s ; and t h e s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e s h a l l cause t h e s a i d amendment o r amendments t o be pub- l i s h e d i n f u l l i n a t l e a s t one newspaper i n each county ( i f such t h e r e b e ) f o r t h r e e months p r e v i o u s t o t h e n e x t g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n f o r members t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly; and a t s a i d e l e c t i o n t h e s a i d amendment o r amendments s h a l l b e submitted t o t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s of t h e s t a t e f o r t h e i r a p p r o v a l or r e j e c t i o n and such a s a r e approved by a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g t h e r e o n s h a l l become p a r t of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . Should more amendments than one be -

submitted a t t h e same e l e c t i o n , t h e y s h a l l be s o prepared and d i s t i n g u i s h e d by numbers o r o t h e r w i s e t h a t each can be v o t e d upon s e p a r a t e l y ; provided, however, t h a t n o t more t h a n t h r e e amendments t o t h i s c o n s t i t u - t i o n s h a l l be submitted a t t h e same e l e c t i o n . " (Emphasis supplied) I n t h e foregoing quoted S e c t i o n s 8 and 9 of A r t i c l e X I X , t h e unJ.erlined p o r t i o n s show t h e s e d i s t i n c t language d i f f e r e n c e s : S e c t i o n 8. I n a c a l l f o r a convention---- t h o s e v o t i n g 13n t h e q u e s t i o n .

S e c t i o n 8. I n a p p r o v a l of a r e v i s i o n - - - - t h e e l e c t o r s voting a t the election. Section 9 , I n approval of amendments ---- Those voting thereon. Our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s on v o t i n g i n d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f e l e c t i o n s have oth.er examples of v a r y i n g language u s e d , e . g . :

A r t i c l e X , S e c t i o n 2,concerning t h e permanent s e a t of II government---- t h e m a j o r i t y of a l l t h e v o t e s upon s a i d q u e s t i o n 1 ' ; A r t i c l e X , S e c t i o n 3 concerning a change of t h e s e a t of government - - - - "a v o t e of t w o - t h i r d s of a l l t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s o f t h e s t a t e v o t i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n " ; A r t i c l e X I I , S e c t i o n 9 , c o n c e r n i n g a s t a t e w i d e t a x r a t e of II 2 mills---- a m a j o r i t y of a l l v o t e s c a s t f o r and a g a i n s t i t " ; A r t i c l e X I I I , S e c t i o n 2 , concerning d e b t l i m i t ---- II a incljority of t h e v o t e s c a s e f o r and a g a i n s t i t 1 ' ; A r t i c l e X I I I , S e c t i o n 5 , concerning county d e b t l i m i t ---- !'a m a j o r i t y of t b e l e c t o r s t h e r e o f , v o t i n g a t an e l e c t i o n t o be ~ ?rovided by law"; A r t i c l e X V I , S e c t i o n 2, concerning removal of a county s e a t ----- II a m a j o r i t y of t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s of t h e county a t a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n on a p r o p o s i t i o n t o remove t h e county s e a t , s h a l l vOte therefor"; A r t i c l e X V I , S e c t i o n 8 , concerning c o n s o l i d a t i o n of c o u n t i e s ---- I1 a m a j o r i t y v o t e of + : ? ; f : e l e c t o r s i n each county fc 9 : ex- pressed a t a g e n e r a l o r s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n h e l d ? ; ? ; ;?".

The b a s i c i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court should r e q u i r e u s t o determine t h e i n t e n t of t h e framers of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n

when t h e y adopted S e c t i o n 8 of A r t i c l e XTX a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention, August 1 7 , 1889. That s e c t i o n r e a d s i n p a r t : , , 11,l- J; and u n l e s s so submitted and approved by J ;

a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t - t h e e l e c k i o n , no such r e v i s i o n , a l t e r a t i o n o r amendment s h a l l fake e f f e c t . II The t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e s c o n s t r u c t i o n i n c a s e s of t h i s k i n d have been s u c c i n c t l y s e t f o r t h i n t h e c l a s s i c d e c i s i o n Knight v . S h e l t o n , (E.D.Ark.1305), 134 Fed. 423, 426, wherein t h e c o u r t w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i - s i o n of t h e Arkansas C o n s t i t u t i o n concerning amendment t o i t s constitution. There t h e c o u r t summarized: "1. There a r e c e r t a i n r u l e s of law which a r e s o w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i t i s unnecessary t o r e f e r t o a u t h o r i t i e s t o s u s t a i n them. Among t h e s e a r e t h e following: A C o n s t i t u t i o n can be amended o n l y i n f h e mode t h e r e i n p r e s c r i b e d . The c o n s t r u c t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s i s governed by t h e same r u l e s which apply t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t a t u t e s . The language used i s t o be given t h e n a t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e words imply, i n t h e o r d e r and grammatical arrangement i n which t h e framers used them, and i f , t h u s r e g a r d e d , t h e words convey a d e f i n i t e meaning which i n v o l v e s no a b s u r d i t y , and no c o n t r a d i c t i o n between p a r t s of t h e same w r i t i n g , t h e n t h e meaning a p p a r e n t upon t h e f a c e of t h e i n - strument i s t h e one which a l o n e c o u r t s a r e a t l i b e r t y L O say was intended t o be conveyed. I f t h e r e i s no ambiguity i n t h e language u s e d , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o c o n s t r u e , and c o u r t s must f o l l o w t h e l e t t e r of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . I t i s only when t h e language used i s n o t c l e a r o r unambiguous t h a t c o u r t s a r e p e r m i t t e d t o r e s o r t t o t h e r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n which govern c o u r t s i n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e i n t e n t of t h e framers. I f any of t h e p r o v i s i o n s a r e u n j u s t , s o t h a t t h e i r enforcement w i l l work a h a r d s h i p t o any c l a s s of p e r s o n s , t h e remedy must come from t h e people who have adopted them. C o n s t r u c t i o n can f u r n i s h no remedy under our system of government. I I Under S e c t i o n 8 , t h e n a t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e p h r a s e " m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " i s t h a t t o d e t e r - mine whether t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n was adopted, you count t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n , and one-half p l u s one must have voted f o r t h e measure o r i t f a i l s .

W s h a l l a n a l y z e t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on which, a t f i r s t b l u s h , e the a u ~ h o r i t i e smay seem t o b e s p l i t , b u t t h e r e i s something we f e e l r e c o n c i l e s any a p p a r e n t v a r i a n c e i n t h e c a s e s . That p o i n t i s t h a t Nontana i n t h e r e c e n t e l e c t i o n of June 6 , 1972, t r e a t e d t h e v o t e on t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e t h r e e m a t t e r s submitted w i t h i t a s a s e p a r a t e e l e c t i o n from t h e r e g u l a r primary. The f a c t t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e l e c t i o n was a s e p a r a t e one i s c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e mandatory requirement of A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , which s t a t e s t h e r a t i f i c a t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n by t h e people must be I1 by an e l e c t i o n " f o r t h a t purpose. This i s more c l e a r l y p o i n t e d out when i t i s found t h a t t h e p o l l books d i s c l o s e more people voted i n t h e r e g u l a r primary than voted on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e . Also, t h e f a c t s a r e t h a t t h e r e was a g r e a t v a r i a n c e i n t h e number of people who voted on t h e o t h e r t h r e e m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d and on

t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f , so i t would b e pure c o n j e c t u r e t o determine who voted on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n and who d i d n o t . A l l b r i e f s touching t h e p o i n t a t i s s u e h e r e d i s c u s s two PIontana c a s e s , Tinkel v. G r i f f i n , 26 Mont. 426, 68 P. 859 and Morse v. G r a n i t e County, 44 Mont. 78, 119 P. 286. W s h a l l discuss e t h e s e c a s e s l a t e r a f t e r f i r s t t u r n i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o o t h e r a u t h o r i - ties. S t a t e ex r e l . Hayman v. S t a t e E l e c t i o n Board, (1938), 181 Okla. 622, 75 P.2d 861,862,864, i s a c a s e i n which a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment was submitted t o t h e v o t e r s , and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n of Oklahoma provided, i n p a r t : " I f a m a j o r i t y of a l l t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n s h a l l v o t e i n f a v o r of any amend- ment t h e r e t o , i t s h a l l thereby become a p a r t of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . I1 OIclahoma a l s o has a s t a t u t e which makes every p r e c i n c t e l e c t i o n board r e t u r n t o t h e county e l e c t i o n board t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n so t h e s t a t e e l e c t i o n board could c e r t i f y t h e t o t a l number of b a l l o t s c a s t a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r e l e c t i o n . The same s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h e county e l e c t i o n boards t o r e c o r d t h e number of b a l l o t s s p o i l e d o r n o t v o t e d , a l l of which i s r e p o r t e d t o t h e s t a t e e l e c t i o n board. The proposed amendment r e c e i v e d a a f f i r m a t i v e v o t e of 379,405, and a n e g a t i v e v o t e of 219,996. The t o t a l v o t e s c a s t a s shown by t h e c e r t i f i c a t e was 767,745 v o t e s , and t h e e l e c t i o n board determined t h a t t h e amendment d i d n o t pass. An a c t i o n was brought, and t h e Oklahoma Supreme Court h e l d t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n board was c o r r e c t . The Supreme Court r e f u s e d t o i s s u e t h e w r i t t o change what t h e e l e c t i o n board had r e p o r t e d , and among o t h e r t h i n g s made t h e following o b s e r v a t i o n : "Under t h i s suggested method, no e l e c t o r would b e considered who d i d n o t v o t e on t h e o f f i c e o r measure r e c e i v i n g t h e h i g h e s t v o t e , thereby e l i m i n a t i n g many v o t e r s who, i r k t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , voted only S t a t e , county, o r p r e c i n c t b a l l o t s . The inaccuracy and f a l l i b i l i t y of t h i s method a r e conspicuously apparent. They a s s e r t t h a t t h i s number should a r b i t r a r i l y be considered a s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e number of I e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n . ' This i s p r e d i c a t e d upon a pre- sumption which i s significant:ly c o n t r a r y t o t h e a c t u a l and admitted f a c t s a s presented i n t h i s c a s e . B t h i s method every v o t e r appearing a t y t h e p o l l s who d i d n o t s e e f i t t o c a s t a v o t e f o r p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t o r s , b u t who may have voted f o r every o t h e r S t a t e o f f i c e r , o r county o r p r e c i n c t o f f i c e r , o r on t h e submitted amendment i t s e l f , i s e l i m i n a t e d from c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s an I e l e c t o r v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n . 1 This i s i n d i r e c t d i s c o r d w i t h t h e theory conceded by a l l p a r t i e s t o t h i s proceeding t h a t every v o t e r appearing a t t h e p o l l s and c a s t i n g a v o t e f o r o r a g a i n s t any c a n d i d a t e o r measure sub- m i t t e d i s t o be considered i n determining t h e t o t a l number of ' e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n . " ' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . I n People v. Stevenson, (1917), 281 I l l . 17, 117 N.E. 747, 749, a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment had been submitted t o t h e v o t e r s by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The canvassing board r e t u r n e d t h a t 1,343,381 male e l e c t o r s voted a t t h e e l e c t i o n ; 656,782 voted f o r t h e proposed amend- ment, and 295,782 voted a g a i n s t i t . The canvassing board then determined t h e h i g h e s t number of v o t e s c a s t f o r t h e members of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e assembly, and s i n c e t h e v o t e on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment was more than h a l f of t h e v o t e f o r t h e members of t h e assembly, a s f i g u r e d by t h e i r formula, t h e canvassing board de- termined t h a t t h e amendment had been adopted. The t r i a l c o u r t r e - viewed t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e canvassing board and determined t h a t t h e amendment had n o t been adopted. I n affirming t h i s decision, the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e 1818 C o n s t i t u t i o n of I l l i n o i s and t h e 1848 C o n s t i t u t i o n of I l l i n o i s . The d e c i s i o n was given under S e c t i o n A r t i c l e 14, of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1870, which provided t h a t " i f a m a j o r i t y v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n r ' voted f o r t h e amendment, i t was c a r r i e d . The Court made t h e following o b s e r v a t i o n s : "It seems t o us t h a t t h e people who r e a d and voted on t h e adoption of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n would n o t have understood i t t o mean t h a t an e l e c t i o n a t v ~ h i c ha c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment was voted on, whether i t was adopted o r r e j e c t e d , was t o b e determined by t h e v o t e of t h o s e , o n l y , who voted f o r members of t h e ;enera1 Assembly. A more reasonable understanding, r e q u i r i n g no c o n s t r u c t i o n o r c o n j e c t u r e , would seem t o be t h a t t h e amendment must r e c e i v e a m a j o r i t y of che v o t e s c a s t a t t h e e l e c t i o n .

"The i n t e n t i o n t o which f o r c e i s given i n c o n s t r u i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s i s t h a t vihich i s embodied and expressed i n t h e language of t h e p r o v i s i o n s . 11 As a C o n s t i t u t i o n i s dependent upon adoption by che people, t h e language used w i l l be understood i n t h e sense most obvious t o t h e common understanding. "The language and words of a C o n s t i t u t i o n , u n l e s s t h e y be t e c h n i c a l words and phrases, w i l l be given e f f e c t according t o t h e i r u s u a l and o r d i n a r y s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and c o u r t s w i l l n o t d i s r e g a r d t h e p l a i n and o r d i n a r y meaning of t h e words used, t o s e a r c h f o r some o t h e r c o n j e c t u r a l i n t e n t i o n . 6 R.C.L. 52; Law v . People, 87 I l l . 385; H i l l s v. C i t y of Chicago, 60 111.86." The Wyoming Supreme Court i n S t a t e ex r e l . B l a i r v. Srooks, (1909), 1 7 Wyo. 344, 99 P. 874, considered a v o t e on a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment. The Wyoming C o n s t i t u t i o n , i n A r t i c l e 20, S e c t i o n 1, r e q u i r e s t h a t an amendment r e c e i v e a m a j o r i t y of t h e electors. I t appeared t h a t 37,561 v o t e s were c a s t a t an e l e c t i o n on a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment and 12,160 voted i n f a v o r of t h e

amendment, and 1,3G3 voted a g a i n s t t h e amendment. The Court ob- served t h a t t h e c a s e s a r e i n c o n f l i c t , b u t t h a t t h e language used i n t h e Wyoming C o n s t i t u t i o n r e f e r r e d t o t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e s t a t e sa t h a t t h e matter must c a r r y by more than a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g on t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , and i t must be a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e who showed themselves t o be e l e c t o r s . I n Green v. S t a t e Board of Canvassers, (1896), 5 I d a . 130, 47 P. 259,260, t h e Supreme Court of Idaho had b e f o r e i t a c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l amendment which was voted upon by t h e e l e c t o r a t e of Idaho t o g i v e women suffrage,; 12,126 voted f o r and 6 , 2 8 2 voted a g a i n s t . The board of canvassers r e p o r t e d t h e amendment a s n o t b e i n g adopted and an a c t i o n ensued. The Idaho S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n c o n t a i n s a II p r o v i s i o n t h a t amendments a r e approved i f a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s s h a l l r a t i f y t h e same". Idaho a l s o h a s i n A r t i c l e 20, S e c t i o n 3 , a p r o v i s i o n s i m i l a r t o o u r s , " i f a m a j o r i t y of a l l t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t s a i d e l e c t i o n s h a l l have voted f o r a convention -7- .a > sb 7k. The Idaho Court made a g r e a t d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e meaning of t h e two p r o v i s i o n s and made t h e following o b s e r v a t i o n which i s important h e r e because of t h e s i m i l a r i t y of t h e language cons t r u e d t h a t t o be construed i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e : " I f t h e y were, a s counsel f o r defendants contend, intended t o mean t h e same t h i n g , why was n o t t h e same language used? W know of no r u l e of c o n s t r u c - e t i o n , nor h a s our a t t e n t i o n been c a l l e d t o any, t h a t would warrant us i n a r b i t r a r i l y saying t h a t t h e language used i n t h e two s e c t i o n s was intended t o mean t h e same t h i n g . O t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e reason seems t o u s t o be n t h e o t h e r way. W can understand why t h e makers of t h e e c o n s t i t u t i o n should apply a d i f f e r e n t and more s t r i n g e n t r u l e i n t h e adoption of a c a l l f o r a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l con- v e n t i o n from what they would i n t h e m a t t e r of a mere amendment, I t i s t r u e , t h e amendment under c o n s i d e r a - t i o n i s one of v a s t importance, b u t s o , l i k e w i s e a r e t h e o t h e r amendments submitted a t he same time. With t h e c h a r a c t e r o r importance of t h e amendment we have nothing t o do i n t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Was t h e amendment adopted a s r e q u i r e d by t h e terms and p r o v i s i o n s of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ? To h o l d t h a t i t was n o t i s v i r t u a l l y t o s a y t h a t no amendment of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n i s p r a c t i c a b l e . I n f a c t , counsel do n o t s t r e n u o u s l y contend f o r a con- s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v i n g such a conclusion, b u t r a t h e r i n s i s t t h a t t h e words ' m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s , I i n s e c t i o n 1, should be construed t o mean t h e same a s t h e words ' m a j o r i t y of a l l t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n , 1 i n s e c t i o n 3. Even t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by counsel do n o t go t o such an e x t e n t t o s u s t a i n such a conclusion." The reasoning and c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e Idaho Court i s proper and l o g i c a l . It i s a maxim of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , no l e s s a p p l i c a b l e t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law, t h a t "where t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l p r o v i s i o n s o r p a r t i c u l a r s , such a c o n s t r u c t i o n i s , i f p o s s i b l e , t o be adopted a s w i l l g i v e e f f e c t t o a l l . " Section 93-401-15, R.C.M. 1947. Moreover, t h e i n t e n t of t h e framers must be d e t e r - mined from t h e language used i n t h e document. The r e a s o n i n g of t h e Idaho Court i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s f o r i t g i v e s e f f e c t t o two d i f f e r e n t l y worded s e c t i o n s "majority of t h e e l e c t o r s " and "majority of a l l e l e c t o r s voting a t s a i d e l e c t i o n . l1 The ap- parent i n t e n t of t h e framers t o impose a s t r i c t e r requirement i n convening a convention than i n r a t i f y i n g an amendment i s a l s o considered. I n Lee v. S t a t e of Utah, (1962), 13 Utah 2d 15, 367 P.2d 861, a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment r e l a t i n g t o wartime and emergency powers of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e was submitted t o t h e v o t e r s and there- a f t e r was attacked on the grounds t h a t a majority of t h e e l e c t o r s r e g i s t e r e d had not voted, The Supreme Court of Utah held t h a t a s t h e majority of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g thereon, a s provided by t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n , had voted i n favor, t h e amendment had been r a t i f i e d .

I n Town of Pine B l u f f s v. S t a t e Board of Equalization, (19581, 79 Wyo. 262, 333 P.2d 700, i t was contended t h a t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment was not properly adopted because i t was n o t supported by a majority of the e l e c t o r s of t h e s t a t e although i t got a majority of those voting on t h e proposition. However, i t d i d have a majority a l s o of those voting a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r e l e c t i o n . The argument was t h a t t h e r e were more franchised v o t e r s i n t h e s t a t e taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l t h e people who were r e g i s t e r e d , and a s a conse- quence, i t d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e support of a majority of the e l e c t o r s . The Court t h e r e h e l d , c i t i n g Indiana, t h a t a s e n s i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n had t o be a p p l i e d , and t h e wording " a l l e l e c t o r s of t h e s t a t e " a r e t h e e l e c t o r s voting a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r e l e c t i o n , A r t i c l e X I X , Section 8 , of t h e 14ontana C o n s t i t u t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e r a t i f i c a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n s a f t e r a convention, It provides i n p a r t t h a t such r a t i f i c a t i o n must be by a majority of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n . " Section 9, r e l a t i n g t o t h e r a t i f i c a t i o n of amendments proposed by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , provides 11 i n p a r t t h a t such amendments must be approved by a majority of those voting thereon." I t i s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n language which d i c t a t e s t h a t t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n may have f a i l e d . "[floting thereon" a s i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e Idaho Court i n Green, may be ~ a k e n t o mean a count of ayes and nays. "[ ~ l o t i n g t a the election" must mean something d i f f e r e n t and more; t h a t i s , a l l t h o s e who c a s t b a l l o t s whether a y e s , o r nays, on any one of t h e f o u r i s s u e s submitted. I n f a c t , i n S t o l i k e r v . White (1960), 359 Mich. 65, 101 N.W.2d 299, 300,304, t h e Court based i t s d e c i s i o n on such a d i s t i n c - tion: "The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s i s t h i s : Does t h e Constitution require a different vote f o r the

+' c a l l of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention than i t r e q u i r e s f o r t h e adoption of a n amendment t o t h e Constitution?

"What t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a c t u a l l y says i s t h a t t h e adoption of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment r e q u i r e s a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s ' v o t i n g t h e r e o n , ' whereas a c a l l f o r a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention r e q u i r e s a 1 a m a j o r i t y of such e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n . '

II I n s h o r t , we a r e now asked t o hold t h a t t h e people d i d n o t c l e a r l y understand what t h e y were t h u s doing. W a r e asked t o hold t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e 1899 opinion e of t h e Attorney General upon t h e v e r y i s s u e h e r e presented, despite t h e unsuccessful l e g i s l a t i v e a t - tempt t o overcome i t immediately t h e r e a f t e r , d e s p i t e t h e r u l i n g of t h e Board of S t a t e Canvassers t h a t t h e 1904 p r o p o s i t i o n had f a i l e d t o c a r r y f o r l a c k of t h e n e c e s s a r y m a j o r i t y , and d e s p i t e t h e re-enactment i n t h e new C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e v e r y language over which a l l of t h i s turmoil had raged, t h e people d i d n o t r e a l l y understand t h e c l e a r meaning of t h e words they were u s i n g , once a g a i n , i n t h e i r new C o n s t i t u t i o n . ( C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1850, a r t i c l e 20,§2: such e l e c t i o n , s h a l l decide i n favor of a convention ,. .a P ,-- 1 . -*-, ,, ' ? ; i n case a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s so q u a l i f i e d , v o t i n g a t

I n c a s e a m a j o r i t y of such e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t such e l e c t i o n s h a l l d e c i d e i n favor of a convention ; ;2' ik. ' ) iqe a r e t o hold t h a t when they r e q u i r e d t o pass a k ,. C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1908, a r t i c l e 17, $ 4 : ' " " " ,. ,,

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment a m a j o r i t y of t h e v o t e s c a s t !:hereon, and when they r e q u i r e d t o c a l l a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l zonvention a m a j o r i t y of t h e v o t e s c a s t a t such e l e c t i o n , they were a c t u a l l - y p r e s c r i b i n g no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two v o t e s b u t were i n f a c t merely c a l l i n g f o r t h e same v o t e on each. A l l of t h i s we d e c l i n e t o do. The understanding of our people i s n o t so meager. T h e i r Aistinguished l e a d e r s who framed t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n were n o t so i n e p t , so t h o u g h t l e s s , so b l i n d t o t h e i s s u e s 35 t h e day. From t h e language used i t i s c l e a r t h a t they mean2 t o d i s t i n g u i s l ~between t h e v o t e s r e q u i r e d f o r a simple amendment and t h o s e r e - q u i r e d t o c a l l a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l convention, and our h o l d i n g i s t h a t they d i d so d i s t i n g u i s h , " e have t h u s r e l i e d upon t h e contemporaneous W ~ n d e r s t a n d i n gof t h e people. Their understanding i-s a s r e l e v a n t today a s i t was a h a l f - c e n t u r y ago 2nd i t has a d i r e c t a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o t h e s i t u a t i o n '3efore us. When t h e people went t o t h e p o l l s i n !958 t o v o t e upon t h e q u e s t i o n of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .zonvention, they went w i t h t h e contemporaneous a d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t a f a i l u r e t o v o t e upon t h e con- s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n would have t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t 3f a v o t e i n t h e n e g a t i v e thereon. Such i s n o t only she c l e a r phrasing of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n b u t t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t i n t h e S t a t e had unanimously so r u l e d w i t h r e s p e c t t h e r e t o . W have no way of knowing how many e ~ f t h e 900,000 e l e c t o r s who f a i l e d t o v o t e on t h e Lssue would have ,voted i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e t h e r e o n , had they v o t e d , o r how many who f a i l e d t o v o t e d i d so 3ecause of r e l i a n c e upon t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of t h e i r f a i l u r e t o v o t e . Obviously we cannot say t h a t t h e r ~ r o p o s i t i o nc a r r i e d n o r can we command t h e Board of S t a t e Canvassers, a s p l a i n t i f f wishes ' t o c e r t i f y chat t h e r e v i s i o n q u e s t i o n c a r r i e d . 1 11' There a r e two Montana c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g t h e e l e c t i o n pro- v i s i o n s o f t h e c u r r e n t C o n s t i t u t i o n concerning v o t i n g on bond elections. I n T i n k e l v. G r i f f i n , (1902), 26 Mont. 426,431, 68 P. 559, t h e Supreme Court had b e f o r e i t a v o t e i n Flathead County Eor t h e b u i l d i n g of a new county courthouse and j a i l . The county commissioners had r e g u l a r l y submitted t o t h e v o t e r s t h e m a t t e r af t h e loan. That e l e c t i o n was h e l d under A r t i c l e X I I I , S e c t i o n 5 , o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n which c o n t a i n s t h e following language: "* ?';; No county s h a l l i n c u r any indebtedness o r l i a b i l i t y f o r any s i n g l e purpose t o an amount exceeding t e n thousand d o l l a r s ($10,000) without t h e approval of a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s t h e r e o f v o t i n g a t an e l e c t i o n t o be provided by law. ?I T h i s language i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t than t h e language i n S e c t i o n s 8 and 9 , A r t i c l e X I X , of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . The q u e s t i o n a r o s e a s to what c o n s t i t u t e d a m a j o r i t y of f h e e l e c t o r s of t h e county v o t i n g .

The Court pointed o u t t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n could have been h e l d by i t s e l f o r a t any time. A s a consequence, t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n t o be provided by law would be only t h o s e who voted on t h e bonds themselves. The Supreme Court t r e a t e d t h e e l e c t i o n on bonding t h e county a s a s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n , although i t was h e l d a t t h e same time a s t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n . Thus t h e r e were two e l e c t i o n s t h e same day. The Court i n T i n k e l s a i d t h i s : " ~ appears t h a t t h e h i g h e s t number of v o t e s t c a s t f o r any o f f i c e voted upon a t t h e e l e c t i o n was 2,400, t h a t 1,000 were c a s t i n f a v o r of t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e bonds, and t h a t 462 were c a s t a g a i n s t i t . It t h u s c l e a r l y a p p e a r s , counsel say, t h a t t h e proposition did not receive a majorlty of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g , w i t h i n t h e meaning of S e c t i o n 5 , A r t i c l e X I I I , of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . "1t w i l l be observed t h a t t h e requirement i s t h a t t h e approval must be by a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e county v o t i n g , n o t a t a g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n , b u t a t an e l e c t i o n t o be provided by law, I1 As we have seen, such a n e l e c t i o n h a s been provided by law t o be h e l d a t any time i t may be deemed neces- s a r y by t h e board of commissioners, I t happens, a l s o , t h a t t h e manner of holding i t i s t h e same a s t h a t pre- s c r i b e d f o r g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n s . Thus i t nay, w i t h p e r f e c t p r o p r i e t y , be h e l d a t t h e same time a t which a general election i s held; but the f a c t t h a t t h i s i s t h e c a s e does n o t r e q u i r e a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d of e s t i m a t i n g t h e maj o r i t y n e c e s s a r y from t h a t which would govern i f t h e e l e c t i o n i s h e l d on a d i f f e r e n t day. The e v i d e n t meaning of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n i s t h a t t h e approval must be t h e r e s u l t of a n e x p r e s s i o n of a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g , The e x p r e s s i o n ' m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s t h e r e o f v o t i n g a t a n e l e c t i o n , 1 e t c . , c l e a r l y means a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e who v o t e , and n o t a m a j o r i t y of a l l t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e county, o r of t h o s e who v o t e upon any o t h e r i s s u e a t t h e same o r some o t h e r time. I f t h e e l e c t i o n on t h e i s s u e of a loan had been upon a n o t h e r day, t h e r e would have been no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t i t would have had a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e county who voted. It was none t h e l e s s a s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n , w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e law, though i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e i t was h e l d , f o r convenience, on t h e day f i x e d f o r a g e n e r a l election. It The Court f e l t t h a t only t h o s e who voted on t h e bond i s s u e should have been counted i n determining whether a m a j o r i t y voted f o r o r a g a i n s t t h e bonds. W have no argument w i t h t h a t philosophy. e The same argument i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e a t b a r because t h e t o t a l number of v o t e s f o r t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n may have been l e s s than a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e who voted on t h a t s e p a r a t e i s s u e .

T i n k e l was followed by Morse v. G r a n i t e County, (1911), 44 Mont, 78, 95, 119 P, 286. There, t h e county commissioners c a l l e d a n e l e c t i o n t o submit t o t h e v o t e r s t h e m a t t e r of borrowing $50,000 t o b u i l d a courthouse. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G r a n i t e County r u l e d i n t e r a l i a t h a t not s u f f i c i e n t v o t e r s had voted i n f a v o r of t h e bond and h e l d t h e bond i s s u e v o i d and ordered a n i n j u n c t i o n t o issue. The Court c i t e d T i n k e l w i t h approval: 11 f The e v i d e n t meaning of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i s t h a t t h e approval must be t h e r e s u l t of an e x p r e s s i o n of a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g . The e x p r e s s i o n 1I m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s t h e r e o f v o t i n g a t an e l e c t i o n , 11 e t c . , c l e a r l y means a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e who v o t e , and n o t a m a j o r i t y of a l l t h e e l e c t o r s of t h e county, o r of t h o s e who v o t e upon any o t h e r i s s u e a t t h e same o r some o t h e r time. 1 1 1 The Court t h e n went on t o say t h a t t h e laws and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n should b e so i n t e r p r e t e d a s t o become u s e f u l . A m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s who voted a t t h e e l e c t i o n on June 6 , 1972, may n o t have voted - t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e same a s t h e Court h e l d i n for t h e two Montana c a s e s j u s t c i t e d . W would f i n d then t h a t " p o s i t i v e a s s e n t " i s t h e same a s e 1I a m a j o r i t y of t h e e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " . This p o s i t i v e a s s e n t i s r e f e r r e d t o by many w r i t e r s and c o u r t s a s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y m j o r it y a . The q u e s t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s a m a j o r i t y of what group? C l e a r l y , t h a t of " e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n " i s required, What t h a t means under t h e f a c t s h e r e i s t h e problem. As r e l a t e d h e r e t o f o r e , t h e r e l a t o r s ' p o s i t i o n i s simply t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y of s t a t e ' s c e r t i f i e d number v o t i n g i s 237,600 and t h a t answers the q u e s t i o n . But does i t ? 1I The respondent says simply t h a t t h e group voting a t the e l e c t i o n 1 ' i s confined t o t h o s e v o t i n g on i s s u e ?/ I , o r a s he p u t s i t t h e "main i s s u e " and t h a t answers t h e q u e s t i o n . But does i t ? W should then a t t e m p t t o analyze t h e f i g u r e c e r t i f i e d by e t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . The S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e r e c i t e d t h a t h e had --C . I ------- . ------ - .U ~ - r - n _ _- - . ..__ --__ - - . . - . . _TAW- - - _ -- - . I ed Constitrriion

ELECTIO:.: I : 3 R THC CATIFICATION OR REJECTION OF TI4E F PROPOSALS O THE CONSiITUTIOMAL CON\'ENTION, JUNE 6, 1972

For the Cc L)IIOY - -- -- of- - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - -. -- C Q - S C ~- -C -~ ~ ~ ' I * ) ! ~ullllprsigllr,r] Ilt,rc,by rc.r:if?- thn: ~ k t ...( itl1i11 co~!atitt~frs 1 $jT:\TI' 0 'lIOS'I'.\SX I 3 ftI:i. true nllcl c o l ~ ~ l , l tAt h t ract ' ~ < t i \'t :~.s ~ ' 1 s tin Cc>utlt)- uf.. ........................................................................ 1"- * . . . . ...................................................... Cc*u:t;y,at all vlcc.tio11 C,, .lu~lc. 19i2, Tor : 1. County Clcrk tkic f ] ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ t t tht : : l * ~ I I C~ ' t l l l ~ t i t l l - a11111:s-Ofiicio C11.1.l; ( t i t l ~ cUonrd of County Callvrssera of J~;,~jficilti(tllr,.jt-ctittrl ttf tit,!,:,! t ' ~ I I I V C I I ~ ~ ( B I I . said Coul!ty,

............. ! ........._.......................................................... County . i ............................................................................... (lsamssing Attest ::I\. , band n11d thc seal of said C e a n t ~hcrcto nflisccl ~ ~ a t d i .' .. ..............................____..................................... ! this ....................-...........-................................ ~ d n of dnne, 1972. so:c: C~~rudag board m e Indhe::>l:y l!;o (hb ~ c ~ k - ~ f t .

1211,En Office S c c r c t ~ r yof State 011 the......................... I of ............ .......................-............... .1972. nt t!tl- lwur of ......... 1 . OFFICIAI~ ...................____ ................................................... sarr C'ounty Clrrl; nnd flcrl; of sq,?id 13onrd of ..._.........................._................-................. ........_. Scrrc,tnv of St ntc. Coul;ty Cnnvnsers of .................-....-......- C o u n t ~ Ststc of Yontrrnn. , Ily ........-.....................-...................... ........................... l)cp11t\. _ _. -_ .--.- .-. ^-.-. ---- - From t h e S e c r e t a r y of s t a t e ' s c e r t i f i c a t e of canvass i t i s ~ b v i o u st h a t some e l e c t o r s d i d n o t v o t e f o r o r a g a i n s t a l l

22 t h e i s s u e s on t h e b a l l o t . A t o t a l of 230,298 e l e c t o r s voted ~ i the l f i r s t i s s u e , 217,684 e l e c t o r s voted on t h e second i s s u e , 228,125 e l e c t o r s voted on t h e t h i r d i s s u e , and 224,756 e l e c t o r s voted on t h e f o u r t h i s s u e . The t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g was , 2 e r t i f i e d a s 237,600. I n a compilation of v o t e s by c o u n t i e s prepared by t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e from t h e a b s t r a c t s , on i s s u e #3 t h e r e were 18 c o u n t i e s which had more v o t e s than on i s s u e #I, by a t o t a l of 290 v o t e s . This f a c t , , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , demonstrates c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t e l e c t o r s voted on t h e b a l l o t (thus a t t h e e l e c t i o n ) b u t d i d n o t a l l v o t e on i s s u e #1. But of t h e 7,302 v o t e s d i f f e r e n c e between t h e number v o t i n g on i s s u e /I1 and t h e t o t a l number c e r t i f i e d

a s v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n , i t i s impossible on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us t o determine how many of t h a t number a r e a c t u a l v o t e s c a s t o r

j u s t b a l l o t s issued. I n o t h e r words, does 237,600 r e p r e s e n t a nec v o t i n g f i g u r e o r a g r o s s f i g u r e of t h o s e r e c e i v i n g b a l l o t s ? S e c t i o n 23-4002(4), R.Ce1f. 1947, provides: "A b a l l o t which i s n o t endorsed by t h e o f f i c i a l scamp i s void and s h a l l n o t be counted. A b a l l o t o r p a r t of a b a l l o t i s void and sh.all n o t be counted i f t h e e l e c t o r ' s c h o i c e cannot be determined. I f a p a r t of a b a l l o t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y p l a i n t o determine t h e e l e c t o r ' s i n t e n t i o n , t h e e l e c t i o n judges s h a l l count t h a t p a r t . 11 i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e "number voting" should be t h e n e t

figure. F u r t h e r proof of t h i s statement can be found by examining the v o t i n g process under our s t a t u t e s . Since t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n laws a r e t o be followed, s e c t i o n s 23-3601 through 23-3618, R.C.M. 1947, s e t t h e procedure f o r v o t i n g . The v o t i n g on t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n was t r e a t e d as a s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n and s p e c i a l p o l l books were kept on t h e v o t i n g . S e c t i o n 23-3610 provides t h a t t h e p e r s o n ' s name must be recorded i n t h e p o l l book a s he voted; provides f o r che keeping of r e c o r d s f o r t h e l i s t of a l l v o t e r s who v o t e d , and a c e r t i f i c a t i o n by each p r e c i n c t a s t o tirho voted; and provides t h a t t h e c l e r k of e l e c t i o n s s h a l l keep a l i s t o f persons v o t i n g . The name of each person who v o t e s must be e n t e r e d hereon and numbered i n t h e o r d e r v o t i n g . Such l i s t i s lcnown a s and r e c o r d e r t h e p o l l book. From t h e s e p o l l books each county clerk,/should know e x a c t l y how many persons voted on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . I f the o E f i c i a l s followed t h e law, s e c t i o n 23-3605 provides t h a t unmarked b a l l o t s should be r e t u r n e d t o t h e e l e c t i o n judges. S e c t i o n 23- 3606 provides t h a t a v o t e r s h a l l r e c e i v e a new b a l l o t f o r a s p o i l e d one. A s t o t h e counting and canvassing of t h e count, s e c t i o n s 23-4001 through 23-4019, R.C.Pf, 1947, make t h e p r o v i s i o n s . Section 23-4002 provides f o r a method of h a n d l i n g s p o i l e d o r voided b a l l o t s and f o r an a c t u a l t a l l y of t h e number of v o t e r s who c a s t b a l l o t s . I f t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e law were followed m e t i c u l o u s l y , t h e number of v o t e s counted would be a l l good b a l l o t s and r e s u l t i n a net figure. O t h e o t h e r hand, we have p r e v i o u s l y s e t f o r t h i n f u l l n t h e Secretary of s t a t e ' s d i r e c t i v e o r i n s t r u c t i o n s dated June 2 , 11 1972. There he s t a t e s : I n preparing ik ;k ik the abstracts 9 : ;k 9 :

( I ) Check a l l t o t a l s a g a i n s t p r e c i n c t e n t r i e s . f : 9 : i'i(4) I t i s v e r y important t h a t you e n t e r t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s who a r e l i s t e d on t h e p o l l books f o r t h e s e p a r a t e e l e c t i o n on t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n on t h e f r o n t of he a b s t r a c t book f o r t h a t e l - e c t i o n . P l e a s e check t h i s f i g u r e c a r e f u l l y f o r accuracy. i \ 9 : "" n

Note t h e underlined i n s t r u c t i o n s - - - - e l e c t o r s l i s t e d . Is t h a t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f i g u r e r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e s , e l e c t o r s who voted a v a l i d b a l l o t a f t e r t h e t a l l y of he p o l l books was

adjusted? W were a s s u r e d when we assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s e iiiatter t h a t - f a c t u a l d i s p u t e e x i s t e d . no Yet, t h e overn nor's answer admits t h e a l l e g a t i o n of t h e p e t i t i o n t h a t 237,600 e l e c t o r s voted a t the s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n and then f i l e s with h i s b r i e f , through the Attorney General, an a f f i d a v i t of himself, the Secretary of S t a t e , and t h e S t a t e Treasurer, c o n s t i t u t i n g the s t a t e canvassing board, whick a s s e r t s t h a t the figure 237,600 was the t o t a l number receiving b a l l o t s plus absentees, thus a gross f i g u r e r a t h e r than a net f i g u r e a s i s seemingly admitted i n the answer. This pre- sents a fact issue as disc~lssedbefore---in f a c t the c r i t i c a l , c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t figure. &mining the t a b u l a t i o n by counties of the two separate e l e c t i o n s held on the same day and judged, counted, and canvassed by the same e l e c t i o n o f f i c i a l s , i t appears t h a t i n the primary e l e c t i o n a t o t a l of 238,215 votes were c a s t , while i n the s p e c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e l e c t i o n 237,600 votes were c a s t . O u t of those t o t a l votes c a s t , 24 counties show differences between the primary and s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n t o t a l s , while, s i g n i f i c a n t l y , 32 counties show i d e n t i c a l t o t a l s ! Using one example, i n Lewis and Clark County, the s e a t of the S t a t e Capitol, 13,867 votes were c a s t i n the primary and 13,867 votes were c a s t i n the special. Can these be possible net f i g u r e s ? Was n a t a' s i n g l e b a l l o t mutilated or voided f o r some reason i n one or the other election? O r taking another example from Beaverhead County, t h e f i r s t

county l i s t e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y , the t o t a l votes c a s t i n the two separate e l e c t i o n s i s recorded a s 2,832, i d e n t i c a l i n each. Yet i n the p a r t i s a n races f o r nominations t o the United S t a t e s Senate where two men, including incumbent Senator Metcalf, vied f o r the Democratic nomination and four men vied f o r the Republican nomina- t i o n , a t o t a l o f 2,392 votes was t a l l i e d . 441 voters e i t h e r d i d not vote a t a l l on t h a t important race o r t h e i r b a l l o t s were not properly accounted f o r . I n t h a t same county with nine candidates running f o r the nomination f o r governor, a t o t a l of 2,686 votes c a s t was t a l l i e d . 146 votes reported a s voting on t h a t important o f f i c e were not accounted f o r but s i g n i f i c a n t l y 295 more voters expressed a p r e f e r e n c e h e r e than i n t h e s e n a t o r i a l r a c e . This example demonstrates t h a t v o t e r s do n o t v o t e on a l l o f f i c e s o r a l l i s s u e s , b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s do v o t e , and t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t an e l e c t i o n cannot be measured by a s i n g l e i s s u e o r office i n that particular election. These q u e s t i o n s pose o t h e r q u e s t i o n s . Did t h e p r e c i n c t and county e l e c t i o n o f f i c i a l s follow t h e e l e c t i o n laws by ad- j u s t i n g o r balancing t h e i r p o l l books w i t h t h e v a l i d b a l l o t s ?

O r , d i d they follow t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s by i n s e r t i n g t h e number of e l e c t o r s l i s t e d i n t h e i r p o l l boolcs? I t a p p e a r s beyond a doubt t h a t some p r e c i n c t s and some c o u n t i e s d i d i t each tiray! TITUSt h e f i g u r e of 237,600 c e r t i f i e d by t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e l i k e l y r e f l e c t s a combination among c o u n t i e s of n e t and g r o s s f i g u r e s . It i s a c r i t i c a l f a c t question t h a t no analysj-s s h o r t of a recanvass by p r e c i n c t can answer. It i s noted h e r e t h a t no suggestion of f r a u d , bad f a i t h , i r r e g u l a r i t y o r anything of t h a t n a t u r e h a s been r e p o r t e d o r urged i n any of t h e 981 p r e c i n c t s i n t h e e n t i r e s t a t e . That t h e election result on t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n was c l o s e i s s e l f - apparent----a d i f f e r e n c e of only 2 , 5 3 2 v o t e s , The proposed con- s t i t u t i o n was approved i n 12 c o u n t i e s and d e f e a t e d i n 44 c o u n t i e s , Would a recanvass a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t ? Who knows, w i t h o u t t h e c o r r e c t f i g u r e i n t h e formula? The foregoing should pose a dilemma f o r t h i s Court. We a r e aware t h a t t h e b r i e f s argue on burden of proof and presumptions of law. Each s i d e a p p l i e s t h e s e l e g a l arguments t o prove its position. But from our previous d i s c u s s i o n i t i s c l e a r t h a t t o change such a b a s i c document a s our C o n s t i t u t i o n , a c l e a r c u t w i l l of t h e people expressed w i t h i n t h e r u l e s l a i d o u t i n A r t i c l e X I X , S e c t i o n 8 , i s mandatory and should n o t r e s t on t h e n i c e t i e s and s u b t l e t i e s of t h e r u l e s on burden of proof and presumptions of law. W a r e h e r e concerned w i t h h a r d , c o l d , mathematical f a c t s which e can be determined. This Court h a s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o s e e t h a t

t h e f a c t s a r e determined. We would find that the only solution to this problem is to grant a writ of mandamus to compel a recanvass by precinct of the votes cast in the June 2, 1972 election. A canvassing board cannot evade its duties by adjourning without taking the action required by law, and mandamus lies to compel its members to reassemble and perform their duty. A partial or incomplete canvass is viewed in the same manner as a total failure to make a canvass in the first instance, and a writ may issue to compel the board to reassemble and make a complete and accurate canvass of all the returns. This is supported by ample statutory and case law. In this analysis the first point that must be considered is the statutory law. Sections 23-4007 and 23-4008, R.C.M. 1947, state: "23-4007. Disposition of items by registrar. ( )1 When the registrar receives the packages or envelopes, he shall file those containing the ballots voted and detached stubs and the unused ballots and keep them unopened for twelve (12) months. After twelve (12) months, if there is no contest begun in a court or no recount, he shall burn the envelopes without opening them or examining their contents. "(2) The registrar shall file the envelopes or packages containing the precinct registers, certifi- cates of registration, pollbooks, tally sheets, and oaths of election officers. He shall keep them un- opened until the commissioners meet to canvass the returns. The commissioners shall open the envelopes or packages. " ( 3 ) Immediately after the returns are canvassed, the registrar shall file the pollbooks, election records, and the papers delivered to the commissioners. " "23-4008, Disposition of items in event of contest. If there is a contest within twelve (12) months, the registrar shall keep the envelopes or packages unopened until the contest is finally determined and then destroy them. If the court h a s m t o d y of the envelopes or pack- ages as evidence, they are in the custody of the court and the registrar shall not destroy them." There is no dispute that the issue before the Court is an election contest. Did the proposed constitution pass or fail? This contest was filed in this Court and the above cited statutes explicitly and implicitly grant the Court the authority to compel a reexamination o f t h e o r i g i n a l canvass i n . ~ r d e rco determine Zhe e x a c t number of v o t e s , b o t h g r o s s and n e t , t h a t were c a s t It "for" o r a g a i n s t " t h e proposed c o n s t i t u t i o n .

W r e c o g n i z e t h e argument t h a t t h e time f o r a r e c o u n t e ias 2xpired. However, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s provided e x a c t i n s t r u c - cions by which a r e c o u n t may be h e l d , and t h i s Court r e a d i l y

submits t o t h o s e i n s t r u c t i o n s . The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s provided f o r t h e r e t e n t i o n of b a l l o t s

f o r a period of 12 months i n t h e event a d i s p u t e may a r i s e a s t o

t h e e x a c t outcome of a given e l e c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e c a s e a t hand,

t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e q u i s i t e power and means e x i s t f o r a r e c a n v a s s i n g o f t h e June 2 , 1972, s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n , i n o r d e r t o determine t h e II nxact number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g f o r " o r "against" i n that election.

A recanvass i s n o t a new o r unusual remedy. In S t a t e ex r e l . Lynch v. B a t a n i , 103 Mont 353, 362, 62 P.2d 565, we stated: "we t h i n k what t h e c o u r t s a i d i n t h e s i m i l a r c a s e of Capper v . Anderson, 88 Kan. 385, 128 Pac. 207, i s applicable here. 1 here i t was r e c o r d e d : A canvassing board, i n a s c e r t a i n i n g and r e g i s t e r i n g t h e e f f e c t of t h e r e t u r n s , a c t s i n a purely m i n i s t e r i a l capacity, and i s s u b j e c t t o c o n t r o l by mandamus. ** The power t o compel a canvass i m p l i e s t h e power t o compel a c o r r e c t one. A m i n i s t e r i a l duty wrongly performed i s n o t performed a t a l l . The c o r r e c t i o n of an erroneous computation c a n , of c o u r s e , be compelled by a c o u r t . The m i s t a k e s h e r e complained of a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y of t h a t c h a r a c t e r . They con- s i s t of t r e a t i n g t h e f a c e of t h e p o l l books and t a l l y s h e e t s a s i n d i c a t i n g a r e s u l t which a proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e e n t i r e document shows beyond a q u e s t i o n t o be wrong. Whatever might be t h e r u l e i n a s i t u a t i o n a d m i t t i n g of a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n , when a c o u r t can determine w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t t h e p o l l books and t a l l y s h e e t s show a c e r t a i n number of v o t e s t o have been c a s t and counted f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c a n d i d a t e , i t can r e q u i r e a board of c a n v a s s e r s t o g i v e proper e f f e c t t o t h a t determina- c i o n . 11

Sase law from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s s u p p o r t s t h e p r i n c i p l e

expressed i n Lynch. The f o l l o w i n g c a s e s s t a n d f o r t h e s i n g l e

p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a board of c a n v a s s e r s can be reconvened t o c o r r e c t l y , a c c u r a t e l y , and t r u l y a s c e r t a i n t h e r e s u l t of an election. S t a t e v . M i l l s , 132 W.Va.580, 53 S.E.2d 416; Eaton v . County Court of C a b e l l County, 140 W.Va. 498, 85 S.E.2d 648; Kane v . R e g i s t r a r s of Voters of F a l l R i v e r , 328 Mass. 511, 105 N.E.2d 212; Dotson v. R i t c h i e , 211 Ark. 789, 202 S.W.2d 603; Mahoney v . Board of S u p e r v i s o r s of E l e c t i o n s , 205 Md. 325, 108 A.2d 143; S t a t e v. County Court of Logan County, 145 W.Va. 581, 116 S.E.2d 125; and S t a t e v . Mercer County Court, 129 W.Va. 584, 4 1 S.E.2d 855. The l i s t i s e n d l e s s , b u t t h e simple p r o p o s i t i o n e x i s t s t h a t t h i s Court h a s t h e power through t h e s t a t u t e s h e r e t o - f o r e c i t e d , and t h e means, through t h e g r a n t i n g of a w r i t , t o o r d e r a r e c a n v a s s of t h e p r e c i n c t s of Montana t o determine t h e t o t a l number v o t i n g a t t h e s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n on t h e proposed constitution. W would o r d e r t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e t o immediately t a k e e a c t i o n by i s s u i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e f i f t y - s i x county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r s i n Montana t o conduct a r e c a n v a s s by p r e c i n c t t o b a l a n c e t h e p o l l books w i t h t h e v a l i d b a l l o t s t o determine t h e t o t a l number of e l e c t o r s v o t i n g a t t h e s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n . I n f i l i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g d i s s e n t , we r e c o g n i z e t h e f u t i l i t y of i t . By a t h r e e t o two v o t e t h i s Court i s d e c l a r i n g a new majority c o n s t i t u t i o n t o have been adopted. W b e l i e v e t h e l a p i n i o n t o be e wrong; and t h e r e f o r e dis.sent. W a r e aware t h a t under our proposed s o l u t i o n a r e c a n v a s s e might r e v e a l t h e same r e s u l t ; t h a t i s , t h a t i t would show a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e v o t i n g a t t h e e l e c t i o n d i d approve. I f t h a t were t o o c c u r ,