Misplaced Pages

#637362

128-492: District Court judges are elected in nonpartisan elections for six-year terms. Mechanisms exist for removing judges for misconduct, and for filling vacancies between elections. There are 56 District Courts organized into 22 judicial districts, but only 51 District Court judges. Workload is a serious issue in the District Courts, which are assisted in their administrative tasks by a District Court Council. Montana became

256-567: A District Court judge to forfeit his or her judgeship if they file for an elective public office (other than a judicial position) or are absent from the state for more than 60 consecutive days. Originally, Title 3, Chapter 1, Part 6, §607 and §608 of the Montana Code Annotated barred a District Court judge from running for a Montana Supreme Court position, and barred an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from running for

384-595: A centralized repository, with county-level claims filed locally in each county courthouse. The DNRC continues to process new applications for water rights, and occasionally makes changes to existing rights claims. To file a claim for surface water requires the submission of an application to the DNRC. No permit is needed to use groundwater so long as no more than 35 US gallons (130 L) of water per minute are used, and less than 10 acre-feet (12,000 m ) per year are withdrawn. Groundwater consumption over these limits requires

512-538: A committee of Montana District Court judges in those judicial districts encompassed by the division. Each judge served an initial six-year term. After June 30, 1985, terms were four years. The MWUA amendments permitted (but did not require) the Montana Supreme Court to also appoint a Chief Judge. The Chief Judge is selected by the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court from a list developed by

640-424: A given source of surface water whenever conflict emerged. The official could establish who had water rights, how much water they were entitled to, and which rights had priority. This authority was never exercised. Decentralized record-keeping created a huge number of problems. Watersheds routinely became "oversubscribed" (that is, water users claimed the right to more water than was in the stream). The expansion in

768-598: A group which promotes free market solutions to environmental problems, sued to overturn the 1935 law. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana , 2011 MT 328 (Sup.Ct. 2011). But a year later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock , 567 U.S. ____ (Sup.Ct. 2012)., which opened

896-772: A judicial, rather than purely administrative, proceeding would avoid lengthy litigation. In an attempt to pre-empt the impending change to state law, the Tsehéstáno (also known as the Northern Cheyenne ) brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana in January 1975 to secure their Winter rights. The federal government joined their suit in March, and initiated

1024-494: A law in 1995 allowing approximately 4,500 additional claims to be filed, although these claims may be considered only after "on time" water claims are adjudicated. The first step in adjudicating water rights claims is to have the claim verified in county or state records and (when needed) examined in the field by the DNRC. The claims are then turned over to the Water Court, which assigns a water master. The water master makes

1152-520: A new surface water rights law. This legislation recognized that some streams might be "fully adjudicated"; in other words, all the water may be appropriated by existing users. Any new individual wishing to appropriate water from a fully adjudicated source had to obtain approval from a Montana District Court first. As no stream in the state was ever fully adjudicated, this process was never activated. Moreover, decentralized and haphazard record-keeping as well as ongoing utilization of use rights meant that it

1280-401: A new, formal JSC investigation. The 1889 state constitution provided for dividing the state into seven judicial districts. Article VII, Section 6 of the 1972 constitution permitted the state legislature to determine the number of judicial districts, with the proviso that each district be composed only of whole counties, and that each county in the district be adjacent. The article also permitted

1408-465: A notice at the point of diversion, and filing a letter with the county clerk and county recorder. This became known as a "filed right". Filed rights were subject to extensive abuse, as filers routinely exaggerated the amount of water taken and there was no means of challenging the claim of beneficial use. The law also recognized another means of securing surface water rights, which became known as "use rights". Use rights required no filing or posting, merely

SECTION 10

#1732782411638

1536-621: A party, cause, person, etc., in most cases, nonpartisan refers specifically to political party connections rather than being the strict antonym of "partisan". In Canada, the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut are the only bodies at the provincial/territorial level that are currently nonpartisan; they operate on a consensus government system. The autonomous Nunatsiavut Assembly operates similarly on

1664-505: A permit from the DNRC. Final decrees of the Montana Water Court may be appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, but only if the claimant had objected to the preliminary decree or if the claimant's water rights were altered after the issuance of the preliminary decree. All water rights not addressed in the final decree are considered forfeit under state law. About 219,000 water rights claims in 85 sub-basins were filed before

1792-442: A preliminary decree (also known as a "temporary preliminary decree"), in which "first in time, first in line" rights are assigned and water allocations established. The water master must issue a notice advising the public that a preliminary decree has been made, and advertise this notice. Anyone may object to a claim. The special master then decides these claims in a two-party adversarial hearing. Once all objections have been resolved,

1920-532: A process which includes all water claimants, leading the state to negotiate compacts with tribal governments and federal agencies. The Montana Territory was created on May 26, 1864. In 1885, the Montana territorial legislature enacted legislation establishing the first system of water rights for surface water. Under the law, surface water could only be diverted if it was done so for "beneficial use". An individual could establish their water rights merely by posting

2048-535: A proper McCarran waiver of tribal sovereign immunity a Tribe cannot be joined in a state court water adjudication." The decision also extended the McCarran Amendment's waiver to Native American water rights as well. The Supreme Court's decision in Colorado River essentially ended the two federal and one state Montana water rights cases. The Supreme Court's ruling in Colorado River motivated

2176-471: A revised decree is issued and public notice given. Public hearings follow, in which the special master will accept evidence and take testimony. The special master will incorporate the public hearing into a final decree, which is recommended to the Chief Water Judge. The Water Court then holds a trial, almost always overseen by the Chief Water Judge, at the end of which objections to the rulings of

2304-569: A separate docket used by District Courts and some inferior courts. The docket provides specialized attention to misdemeanor or felony crimes, child abuse and child neglect cases, and juvenile cases involving individuals addicted to drugs or alcohol. Drug courts provide treatment as well as sanctions, with the goal of treating addiction, reducing recidivism , and improving rehabilitation. Drug courts rely heavily on drug and alcohol addiction treatment programs; frequent, mandatory drug testing ; reduced sentencing and other incentives to encourage

2432-775: A separate suit on behalf of the Apsáalooke (also known as the Crow Nation ) in April. The state legislature amended the MWUA according to the recommendation of the DNRC during its spring 1975 session. The state of Montana then filed in Montana District Court in July to begin adjudication of water rights in watersheds affecting both the Tsehéstáno and Apsáalooke. The Tsehéstáno and Apsáalooke lawsuits were consolidated by

2560-623: A state in 1889. A state constitution was drafted in 1884, which established a system of courts: A supreme court, district courts, county courts, justices of the peace , and municipal courts such as the legislature might see fit to create. Four judicial districts were created, each with a district court. National politics delayed Montana's statehood, however, in part because a significant number of other territories ( Arizona Territory , Dakota Territory , Idaho Territory , New Mexico Territory , Utah Territory , Washington Territory , and Wyoming Territory ) were all seeking statehood. Statehood for Montana

2688-472: A sub-provincial level. In India , the Jaago Re! One Billion Votes campaign was a non-partisan campaign initiated by Tata Tea , and Janaagraha to encourage citizens to vote in the 2009 Indian general election . The campaign was a non-partisan campaign initiated by Anal Saha . Historian Sean Wilentz argues that from the days of George Washington's farewell address, to Senator Barack Obama's speech at

SECTION 20

#1732782411638

2816-608: A two-thirds vote of the Senate. Impeachment does not bar civil or criminal prosecution. State law also provides for the censure, disability retirement, removal, or suspension of a judge. The law established a Judicial Standards Commission (JSC), which was authorized to receive and investigate complaints, allow the accused to defend him or her self, and make recommendations to the Montana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then would decide if punishment were warranted, and, if so, what type of punishment. The Montana Supreme Court twice ruled on

2944-451: A wave of objections to water rights claims. But four years later, a state legislative study found that far fewer objections had been filed than expected. Although the adjudication process had been slowed, it was not overwhelmed. In 2013 and 2014, the Montana Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in which it established the standard of review for Water Court rulings. The state high court held that Water Court rulings should be reviewed using

3072-540: A year during his tenure as Chief Water Judge, and reviewed and approved nine compacts between the State of Montana and various Native American tribes. Nevertheless, more than 15,000 water rights claims remained unreviewed by the Water Court. Upon his retirement, Loble famously noted "water is a flammable substance" in Montana. McElyea was appointed Chief Water Judge in May 2013 effective upon Loble's retirement. Douglas Ritter

3200-493: Is a court of law in the U.S. state of Montana which has jurisdiction over the adjudication of water rights . The filing, verification, recording, and enforcement of water rights in the Montana Territory and, later, the state of Montana were considered highly inadequate until 1972, when a new state constitution required a more robust, highly centralized water rights legal system. Implementation of this system led to

3328-587: Is common in Montana, as the state is home to several sovereign Indian reservations and non-resident landowners are common. The right of the Montana District Court to exercise original jurisdiction in a probate case involving a judgment by an out-of-state court was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court in In the Matter of the Estates of Jeffrey Connor Wilhelm, Deceased , 760 P.2d 718 (Mont. 1988). This case

3456-555: Is even more notable because the out-of-state court was a United States district court in New York . Two cases have concerned District Court jurisdiction over agreements made on tribal land. Where one party is a tribal member and the other party is a non-member, but both reside on a reservation, District Courts have no jurisdiction the Montana Supreme Court has held ( Geiger v. Pierce , 758 P.2d 279 (Mont. 1988).). However, where an attorney licensed to practice law in

3584-476: Is the only territorial legislature that is officially nonpartisan. Although elections may be officially nonpartisan, in some elections (usually involving larger cities or counties, as well as the Nebraska unicameral) the party affiliations of candidates are generally known, most commonly by the groups endorsing a particular candidate (e.g., a candidate endorsed by a labor union would be generally affiliated with

3712-550: The Flathead Indian Reservation in the state's northwestern corner. The same year as Winters , the Montana Legislature declared it was the policy of the state to fully adjudicate all the waters of the state as soon as possible. But no action was taken. The state legislature took a step toward rectifying the situation in 1947. The legislature enacted a statute which gave the state engineer

3840-563: The Montana Association of Clerks of District Courts ; one county commissioner nominated by the Montana Association of Counties ; and one court reporter nominated by the Montana Court Reporters Association . The Montana Supreme Court has twice had occasion to rule on administrative issues facing District Courts. In State v. Daugherty , 29 P. 735 (Mont. 1979)., the issue

3968-531: The Montana Department of Justice was conducting a criminal investigation of a judge. The JSC obtained documents about the criminal investigation, and found they warranted a sanction against the judge. In 2014, the high court addressed the issue of whether it could sanction a judge without a formal recommendation from the JSC. In this case, a District Court judge had voluntarily admitted his misconduct, and

Montana District Courts - Misplaced Pages Continue

4096-556: The Montana Senate . In 1972, Montana held a constitutional convention to update and revise its state constitution. Under the new constitution, District Courts now had jurisdiction only over criminal felonies, while criminal misdemeanors were handled by City Courts, Justice of the Peace Courts, and Municipal Courts . No longer was the legislature required to establish inferior courts only in incorporated cities or towns, and

4224-408: The 13th District, and one judge each in the 4th, 8th, and 11th Districts. The House passed a bill in mid-February which added two judges to the 13th District, and just one to the 4th and 11th. None of the proposals for adding judges would put a judge on the bench until 2019. Another proposal suggested shifting some counties with heavy workloads into districts with low workloads, but the vast distances in

4352-466: The 1972 constitution, the Governor of Montana nominated a replacement according to whatever manner was prescribed by law. Subsequent state law provided for the creation of a Judicial Nomination Commission, whose duty was to draw up a list of potential replacements for the governor to choose from. If the governor declined to make the nomination within 30 days, the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court

4480-419: The 2014 Montana Supreme Court races. Spending surpassed that in the 2016 contests. The 1889 constitution permitted anyone to run for the office of District Court judge, so long as they were a citizen, had reached the age of 25, were licensed to practice law in the state, and had resided in Montana for at least a year. While judges had to resident in their district, candidates could run in any judicial district in

4608-535: The Associate Water Judge, but in most other respects the two were co-judges of the Water Court. Russ McElyea, a private adjudicator and real estate attorney, was nominated to be the Associate Water Judge in May 2012. His four-year term in office began on July 1. As the DNRC moved more swiftly on examining water rights claims, it had less work to do. However, Chief Water Judge Loble advised the legislature that roughly 90,000 water claims adjudicated in

4736-471: The Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court to assign District Court and other judges to temporary service in another judicial district or in another county. The state has maintained the number of courts at 56 and the number of judicial districts at 22 for some decades. Article VII, Section 6 of the 1972 constitution set District Court judicial terms at six years. Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 1, Part 1, §125 requires each county to provide space to

4864-419: The DNRC estimated there were more than 500,000 water rights claims in the entire state. The lack of records, overclaiming of water, and amount of conflict over water was so bad, to process all water rights claims would take 100 years. In 1974, the DNRC proposed legislation to amend the MWUA to require a Montana District Court to commence the adjudication proceeding, rather than the DNRC. The agency believed that

4992-434: The DNRC to examine all water rights claims by June 30, 2015. The Water Court was given until 2020 to issue all final decrees. To support the Water Court, a fee was imposed on all water rights in the state. The money raised by the water rights fee allowed the Water Court to expand the number of water masters to 11 and the number of clerks to six. The water rights fee proved highly contentious, however. The legislature repealed

5120-653: The Democratic Party, while a candidate endorsed by a business coalition would be generally affiliated with the Republican Party). Churches and charities in the United States are mainly formed under US Internal Revenue Service tax code 501(c)(3) non-profit organization regulations. To maintain that tax-exempt status, and the ability for donors to take a tax deduction, they are required to remain nonpartisan. This has caused some to question

5248-460: The Democratic national convention in 2004, politicians have called upon Americans to move beyond parties. Wilentz calls this the post-partisan style, and argues that "the antiparty current is by definition antidemocratic, as political parties have been the only reliable electoral vehicles for advancing the ideas and interests of ordinary voters". However, nonpartisan elections are quite common at

Montana District Courts - Misplaced Pages Continue

5376-550: The District Court. This includes a courtroom, administrative office space, and other space as needed for court operations. The costs of this space are born by the state. Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 5, Part 1, §102 establishes the number of judges in each judicial district. As of 2016, the number of judges was: The number of judges is very low considering the workload. In 2002, Montana District Courts heard 10,673 civil cases and 7,046 criminal cases. Yet, in 2003,

5504-604: The District Courts were required to hear appeals de novo . The new constitution also authorized the legislature to establish a right to appeal the decisions of state agencies directly to district courts. Impeachment powers were changed as well. Now the Montana Senate and the Montana House of Representatives jointly vested with impeachment powers. The entire legislature could now specify the criteria for impeachment, establish whatever tribunal it wished, and provide for

5632-478: The Gallatin River basin preliminary decree was issued on September 18, 1985. There were 5,699 water rights claims in the basin, and 1,600 objections to the preliminary decree. Those objections were not resolved until 1997. William Wallace Lessley was appointed the first Chief Judge of the Water Court in 1979. He had served as judge of the 18th Judicial District since 1949. He served as a substitute judge on

5760-431: The JSC could engage in an initial investigation without a verified, written complaint. Beyond that, however, the legislature now required the JSC to obtain a verified, written complaint. In State ex rel. Smartt v. Judicial Standards Commission , 50 P.3d 150 (Mont. 2002)., the high court affirmed the JSC's power to subpoena documents. In that case, a preliminary JSC investigation uncovered evidence that

5888-447: The JSC recommended public censure to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that it could accept the JSC's recommendation, but was not bound by it. It could, if it wished, impose a harsher sanction (and did so). However, the court also held that because the judge had voluntarily admitted misconduct but had not agreed to submit to sanction, the judge should be offered the opportunity to withdraw his voluntarily admission. This would trigger

6016-567: The Judicial Standards Commission's investigative procedures. In State ex rel. Shea v. Judicial Standards Commission , 643 P.2d 210 (Mont. 1982)., the high court ruled that charges against judges had to rise to the level of constitutionally proscribed misconduct in office before the JSC could investigate. Following the Shea decision, the Montana Legislature clarified the procedural requirements, so that

6144-491: The MWUA. San Carlos Apache Tribe left the Montana Supreme Court to determine whether the Constitution of Montana and the MWUA gave the Water Court the authority to adjudicate Native American water rights. In State ex rel. Greely v. Water Court , 691 P.2d 833 (Mont. 1984). and State ex rel. Greely v. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes , 712 P.2d 754 (Mont. 1984).,

6272-604: The Montana Judicial Nomination Committee. The 1979 amendments to the MWUA provide for the appointment of special masters (known as "water masters" under the law). Water masters must have extensive experience with water law, water rights, and water use. Water masters apply water right claims examination rules adopted by the Montana Supreme Court, and must follow the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Water masters examine nearly all

6400-452: The Montana Legislature began cutting the budget of the DNRC and Water Court, which dramatically slowed claims verification and adjudication. By 2004, the Water Court had just six water masters and four clerks, and an annual budget of $ 1 million. Full adjudication, which was to have taken 10 years, had stretched to 25 years with no firm end in sight. Preliminary decrees had yet to be issued in 30 sub-basins. The slow pace of adjudication led

6528-502: The Montana Legislature to direct the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) to undertake a study of the Water Court and MWUA in 2003. The EQC determined that the slow pace of adjudication would take another 30 to 40 years to complete, and that errors and inaccuracies were creeping into the system due to the overwhelming workload. The EQC proposed legislation in the 2005 session of the legislature which would require

SECTION 50

#1732782411638

6656-446: The Montana Legislature to enact critical amendments to the MWUA in 1979. In 1977, the DNRC began pressing for a general water adjudication law. The agency proposed that anyone who failed to register their water claim with the state would lose that claim. It recommended against the creation of a water court, and instead argued for an administrative process overseen by the agency itself. The subsequent adjudication would be inter se , to meet

6784-518: The Montana Supreme Court distinguished between navigability-for-title and navigability-for-use. Property owners could take title to stream beds beneath navigable waters. But use of the waters was something different, and could only be vested in the state. In Montana Coalition for Stream Access v. Hildreth , 684 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1984)., the Montana Supreme Court went even further, It held, first, that capability for use (not actual use) determined navigability-for-use, and, second, that

6912-432: The Montana Supreme Court held that the 1972 constitution did not bar state adjudication of Native American water rights, and that the MWUA provided similar authority to the Water Court. As the Montana Supreme Court was deciding the two MWUA cases, it was also wrestling with a new issue: Stream access and recreational use. In Montana Coalition for Stream Access v. Curran , 682 P.2d 163 (Mont. 1984).,

7040-516: The Montana Supreme Court more than 50 times and wrote more than 25 majority opinions between 1949 and 1982. In 1982, his judicial peers elected him Associate Water Judge for the Upper Missouri River Basin Division. He died of a stroke in office on March 29, 1990, at the age of 82. C. Bruce Loble was appointed Chief Water Judge in 1990 to serve the remaining three years of Lessley's term. During Loble's tenure,

7168-408: The Montana Supreme Court ruled on a water rights conflict, there often many appropriators not bound by the decision. Water rights records were dispersed (sometimes across many counties ), grossly inaccurate, and incomplete. Many water rights laid claims to amounts of water that could never be used, calling into question the legality of the claim, and purchasers of water could never be sure of obtaining

7296-422: The Montana Supreme Court. Curran and Hildreth led to another significant Montana Supreme Court ruling regarding Water Court decisions as well. Montana Trout Unlimited (MTU), a fishing advocacy and conservation group, applied to the Water Court to object to certain preliminary water rights rulings on behalf of recreational users. The Water Court refused to give MTU permission to file its objections. MTU took

7424-424: The Montana Supreme Court. In School District No. 12 v. Hughes , 552 P.2d 328 (Mont. 1976)., the state supreme court held that the failure of the state legislature to provide for direct appeal is no bar to such an appeal when the legislature has also provided for a general administrative appeal by statute. But only the legislature, not the executive branch, has the power to create such an appeal,

7552-579: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1982, which held in Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Adsit , 668 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1982)., San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona , 668 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1982)., and Navajo Nation V. United States , 668 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1982). that state courts could not adjudicate Native American water claims. The cases were consolidated by

7680-484: The Republican Party amended its platform to favor the statehood of Democratic-controlled territories. At the 1889 Montana state constitutional convention, delegates retained nearly all the language of the 1884 constitution. However, county courts were abolished and jurisdiction for probate given to district courts. The number of district courts was expanded to eight from four. The 1889 constitution also limited

7808-564: The Supreme Court to follow this reasoning by following a "first to the courthouse". But the Supreme Court declined to do so. Instead, it ruled that the more comprehensive state processes for adjudicating water rights should be allowed to proceed. Federal lawsuits should be not be entertained by the federal district courts until the state water adjudication process has run its course. The ruling in San Carlos Apache Tribe effectively brought Native American water rights claims under

SECTION 60

#1732782411638

7936-761: The U.S. Supreme Court held in Powers v. United States , 305 U.S. 527 (Sup.Ct. 1939). that Native American water rights existed independent of state law. This case had arisen on the Crow Indian Reservation in south-central Montana, and involved land now owned by non-tribal members. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended Powers in United States v. McIntire , 101 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1939)., when it held that title to water rights reserved to tribes could be disposed of only by Congress. This case involved

8064-522: The U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Ninth Circuit in Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe , 463 U.S. 545 (Sup.Ct. 1983). Many legal experts had assumed that federal courts would favor federal (e.g., Native American) interests and state courts would favor state (e.g., local) interests. Depending on where a case was filed would largely determine the outcome, and they expected

8192-491: The Water Court jurisdiction over water allocation decisions by the DNRC. Several studies project that all final adjudications would have been reviewed by the Montana Supreme Court by 2028. This would leave the Water Court with little work. In 1979, the U.S. government revived the several federal lawsuits in Montana seeking to protect the water rights claims of the Native American tribes in the state. These went before

8320-448: The ability of organizations that have the appearance of partisanship. The Brookings Institution is a Washington, D.C. think tank and 501(c)(3) non-profit, nonpartisan organization. Since its founding in 1916, it has had both identifiable Republicans and Democrats among its leadership. Owing to leadership changes such as this, some argue that it is a good example of a nonpartisan organization. The New York Times has at times listed

8448-471: The amount of water they had bought. In 1972, Montana voters adopted a new constitution which greatly expanded the state's treatment of water and water rights. Article IX, Section 3, Subsection 1 recognized and confirmed all existing water rights. Subsection 2 reiterated the 1889 constitution's wording, with only minor and non-substantive changes. Subsection 3, however, established state ownership of all waters (atmospheric and ground, as well as surface) within

8576-430: The appropriation of water and its application for a beneficial use. Use rights were also regularly abused, as there was no record of them and deceit about the date and amount of appropriation was widespread. By 1974, between 60 and 70 percent of all water rights in Montana were use rights. The 1885 law also gave territorial officials the authority to engage in inter se ("including all parties") proceedings regarding

8704-408: The area asked the Water Court to disallow BLM's water rights claims, and to give them the water. The ranchers claimed that the MWUA required actual use of water, not just its diversion or retention. The Water Court declined to overturn BLM's water rights. In In re Barthelmess Ranch Corp. , 2016 MT 348 (Mont. 2017)., the Montana Supreme Court agreed with the Water Court. Although

8832-541: The authority to adjudicate water rights and settle disputes. However, there is no evidence that this discretion was ever exercised. A second step was taken in 1961 when the legislature passed the state's first water rights act, and barred any new use right claims after January 1, 1962. In 1952, Congress enacted the McCarran Amendment , which permitted the federal government to waive its sovereign immunity over water rights. This waiver could be granted only if

8960-491: The case to the Montana Supreme Court, which in 2011 overruled the Water Court and held in Montana Trout Unlimited v. Beaverhead Water Company , 255 P.3d 179 (Mont. 2011). that there "is no statutory or regulatory restriction on who is entitled to file an objection to a claim of a water right." Initially, the effect of Montana Trout Unlimited v. Beaverhead Water Co. was expected to unleash

9088-453: The close of the filing period in 1982. Every year from 1979 to 1997, the Chief Water Judge's office handled between 2,000 and 3,000 water claims. Water masters handled the remainder of the claims. Although verification of water claims can be swift, resolution of objections to the preliminary decree can last a decade or more. Roughly 40 to 50 percent of water rights claims have a problem with verification, priority, or an objection. For example,

9216-720: The court said in Nye v. Department of Livestock , 639 P.2d 498 (Mont. 1982). Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution of Montana provides for the election, rather than appointment of District Court judges. The 1889 constitution limited District Court judges to four-year terms. The state legislature enacted a law in 1909 mandating these elections be nonpartisan, and providing for nomination by citizen petition. The Montana Supreme Court struck down this law in 1911 after finding that it provided for no means of nominating judges in newly created judicial districts. In 1935,

9344-474: The creation of a state constitutional convention in 1971 to update and revise the 1889 constitution. By this time, water rights in the state were almost impossible to verify or enforce. The Montana Supreme Court had held in State ex rel. McKnight v. District Court , 111 P.2d 292 (Mont. 1941). that inter se proceedings were not required when adjudicating water rights. This meant that even when

9472-461: The creation of inferior courts (such as intermediate appellate courts , municipal courts, and small claims courts ) only in state-incorporated cities or towns. The jurisdiction of district courts was specified somewhat in detail, and included both felonies and misdemeanors not otherwise assigned to another court. District courts acted as an intermediate court of appeals, and could not hear cases de novo . Impeachment powers were vested solely in

9600-525: The door to vastly increased PAC and political party spending on judicial races in Montana. In 2012, a Frontline documentary, Big Sky, Big Money , revealed that American Tradition Partnership (the new name of Western Tradition Partnership) had not registered as a political committee under Montana law. American Tradition Partnership spent little money in Montana in 2013, but began spending heavily again in judicial races in 2014. The American Tradition Partnership ruling led to record spending of $ 1.6 million in

9728-464: The early 1980s needed to be re-adjudicated. The Water Court recognized that its early work had not been standardized, and potentially could create extensive litigation once revised preliminary decrees were issued. To assist the Water Court in meeting these needs, the 2013 legislature approved legislation to shift funds and personnel from the DNRC to the Water Court. Chief Judge Loble retired in July 2013. Loble reviewed more than 1,700 water rights claims

9856-717: The equity jurisdiction of District Courts and the development of extraordinary writs. These cases reflect the narrow jurisdiction granted to District Courts under the 1889 constitution, which was significantly expanded in the 1972 state constitution. Montana Supreme Court rulings on standing in District Courts is straightforward and traditional, relying on a widespread, national legal consensus. The most important cases are Stewart v. Board of County Commissioners of Big Horn County , 573 P.2d 184 (Mont. 1977). and O'Donnell Fire Service and Equipment v. Billings , 711 P.2d 822 (Mont. 1985). Several Montana Supreme Court cases since 1972 have clarified

9984-414: The establishment of the Water Court in 1979, after six years of mixed success with an administrative solution. The Water Court consists of a Chief Water Judge, Associate Water Judge, and four District Water Judges, but most work is handled by special masters ("water masters"). The process of identifying, verifying, and adjudicating water rights is a complex one, and budgetary and personnel issues have slowed

10112-490: The federal court, but then stayed because of the conflict between the concurrent state and federal actions. A separate case, Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States , 424 U.S. 800 (Sup.Ct. 1976)., also involving concurrent state and federal lawsuits over water rights, was moving to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court subsequently created a new Colorado River doctrine of abstention . The U.S. Supreme Court "made clear that absent

10240-494: The federal government under Winters and Powers . In 1973, pursuant to the authority provided in the new constitution, the Montana Legislature enacted the Montana Water Use Act (MWUA). The goal of the MWUA was to identify every groundwater source and surface watershed in the state, and to adjudicate every water claim on these sources. The law required that anyone with a water right must file that claim with

10368-424: The fee in 2007, but maintained the Water Court's budget by appropriating funds from the state's general revenues. In 2009, a legislative study found that the adjudication process was now anticipated to end until 2028. To speed up the work of the Water Court, the state legislature approved the creation of an Associate Water Judge in 2011. The Chief Water Judge retained the administrative duties and assigned cases to

10496-405: The fiscal year had ended. Here, the Supreme Court said that District Courts had the authority to order the state to pay reasonable and necessary expenses. Nonpartisanism Nonpartisanship , also known as nonpartisanism , is a lack of affiliation with, and a lack of bias towards, a political party . While an Oxford English Dictionary definition of partisan includes adherents of

10624-425: The high court held that, when a Youth Court has terminated, there is no bar to exercise of jurisdiction by the district court over felony proceedings against a minor. Further, the court held in State ex rel. Elliot v. District Court , 684 P.2d 481 (Mont. 1984)., a District Court has jurisdiction over an adult being tried for crimes committed when the defendant was a minor. Jurisdictional conflict

10752-645: The ideology of the former Progressive Party of Canada . It went into decline and merged with the Democratic Party of North Dakota to form the North Dakota Democratic–;NPL Party in 1956. In the history of Milwaukee , the "Nonpartisans" were an unofficial but widely recognized coalition of Republicans and Democrats who cooperated in an effort to keep Milwaukee's Sewer Socialists out of as many offices as possible, including in elections which were officially non-partisan, but in which Socialists and "Nonpartisans" were clearly identified in

10880-439: The individual to stay in treatment; and much more regular, much more frequent judicial oversight. Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 1, Part 16 establishes a District Court Council to develop and adopt policies and procedures regarding the administration of the District Courts. Court procedures, court reporter needs, fees, human resource management , resource allocation, technology, and workload and work schedules are among

11008-582: The items the District Court Council is required to address. The council consists of the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court and four District Court judges (at least one of whom must not be from a major city). Ex officio members include at least one chief juvenile probation officer nominated by the Montana Juvenile Probation Officers Association , one District Court clerk nominated by

11136-424: The judge served past the formal expiration date of their term. This created a situation in which a judge could conceivably resign immediately after the legislature adjourned, and remain on the bench for up to three years. The judge could then resign before the election. After the election, the governor could appoint a temporary judge once more, and again that judge could serve for up to three years. This clearly defied

11264-595: The jurisdiction of the District Courts. The state supreme court held in State v. Davis , 681 P.2d 42 (Mont. 1984). that District Court jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent of the parties. Youth Courts, created by the Montana Youth Court Act in 1974, are the equivalent of district courts, the Montana Supreme Court held in In re T.L.G. & M.E.H. , 692 P.2d 1227 (Mont. 1984). In Steve v. Beach , 705 P.2d 94 (Mont. 1985).,

11392-543: The late 1980s, a worrisome situation had emerged. First, in 1974, state law was changed so that the legislature met every two years, not every year. Second, rulings in the late 1980s by the Montana Supreme Court and advisory opinions issued by the Attorney General of Montana permitted appointed District Court judges to not face an election until after confirmation by the Montana Senate—even if this meant that

11520-545: The legislature to adopt the Water Court's reexamination benchmarks into law. The legislature did so, and increased funding for Water Court as well. In 2017, the Montana Legislature began consideration of a bill which would alter the MWUA. Under current law, anyone who objects to a DNRC decision regarding new water rights (those filed after 1982) must seek redress in a Montana District Court. But District Court judges expressed concern over this provision, because they lacked experience with water rights. The proposed bill would change

11648-439: The local level, primarily in an effort to keep national issues from being mixed up with local issues. Today, nonpartisan elections are generally held for municipal and county offices, especially school board , and are also common in the election of judges. The unicameral Legislature of Nebraska is the only state legislature that is entirely officially nonpartisan; additionally, the bicameral Fono of American Samoa

11776-437: The maximum number of judges in a judicial district was just four. The total number of judges was 42 in 2006, and 43 in 2011. Judges have been added to the system only irregularly, in 1979, 1983, 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2009. As of the end of 2016, there were just 46 judges, and only the 13th District had been permitted by the legislature to expand beyond four judges. An independent study of District Court workload in 2016 found that

11904-518: The next 90 years to create a centralized water rights system, beginning in 1903, voters in the state feared the creation of a large state bureaucracy and the legislature defeated every attempt. In 1908, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Winters v. United States , 207 U.S. 564 (Sup.Ct. 1908). that Native American tribes had reserved "adequate water to satisfy

12032-433: The number of counties in the state led to the mismanagement of water rights records as county archives were split up, and many records were lost. Other records were lost when county courthouse suffered fires. Montana became a state on November 8, 1889. Article III, §15 of the 1889 constitution provided that "The use of all water now appropriated...shall held to be a public use." Although a number of attempts were made over

12160-609: The organization as being liberal , liberal-centrist, centrist , and conservative . In 2008, The New York Times published an article where it referred to the "conservative Brookings Institution". In the Progressive Era , the Nonpartisan League was an influential socialist political movement, especially in the Upper Midwest , particularly during the 1910s and 1920s. It also contributed much to

12288-408: The position of Chief Justice. The Montana Supreme Court ruled these provisions of law unconstitutional in 1984. In 2010, the Montana Supreme Court held that "elective public office" did not include tribal office. Thus, a state judge could run for tribal office without running afoul of Article VII, Section 10. Article VII, Section 8 of the Montana constitution governs vacancies on District Courts. Under

12416-494: The power to issue writs and naturalize citizens. District Courts have the power to enforce the decisions of the Montana Water Court arising within their judicial district. Except as otherwise provided for by law, District Courts act as appellate courts for inferior courts, and must hear cases de novo . Justices of the Peace Courts are not "courts of record", which is why District Courts must try "the matter anew,

12544-484: The press. (Such candidates were sometimes called "fusion" candidates. ) This lasted from the 1910s well into the 1940s. (The similar effort in 1888 to prevent Herman Kroeger 's election as a Union Labor candidate had been conducted under the banner of a temporary "Citizen's Party" label. ) During the period of Socialist- Progressive cooperation (1935–1941), the two sides were called "Progressives" and "Nonpartisans". Montana Water Court The Montana Water Court

12672-516: The procedures for impeachment. District Courts in Montana have both original and appellate jurisdiction. Each District Court's process extends to all parts of the state, and the District Courts are courts of record . Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution of Montana establishes the jurisdiction of Montana District Courts. District Courts have original jurisdiction in all criminal felony cases, all civil and probate matters, cases at law and in equity, civil actions involving monetary claims against

12800-643: The purposes for which the Reservation was created". Moreover, it was the duty of the U.S. federal government to protect these water rights. This created what are known as " Winters rights", of federally-reserved Indian water rights. The case was of particular importance to Montana because it involved the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in the north-central part of the state. In 1921, the Montana Legislature adopted

12928-500: The requirements of the McCarran Act. Rather than act on the DNRC's proposals, the state legislature established a study committee to make recommendations to the legislature at its next session (to be held in 1979). On April 4, 1979, the legislature voted to include tribal and federal as part of the state's adjudication process. The following day, the federal governments filed four lawsuits in the U.S. District Court seeking to revive

13056-412: The reservoirs had been constructed for the benefit of ranchers holding grazing leases on BLM land, BLM was not obligated to actually distribute the water in order to retain its water claims. Because the state of Montana is not engaged in a full inter se adjudication of water rights, the federal government does not have to relinquish its water rights in Montana under the McCarran Act. The MWUA established

13184-419: The same "clearly erroneous" standard which the Montana Supreme Court uses to review Montana District Court decisions. In 2017, the Montana Supreme Court considered a case in which non-Native federal reserved water rights conflicted with state water claims. In this case, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owned five reservoirs and a lake on federal land. BLM did not, however, use the water. Ranchers in

13312-532: The same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered." Appeals from City Courts and Municipal Courts which are, by law, defined as "courts of record" are the two exceptions, and such appeals are limited to a review of the record and questions of law. According to legal experts Larry M. Elison and Fritz Snyder, none of the pre-1972 Montana Supreme Court rulings regarding District Courts appear relevant today. Nearly all these cases dealt with very narrow interpretative issues, such as

13440-480: The state discouraged this. Although some legislators have suggested increasing the use of binding arbitration , even in criminal law, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co. , 57 P.3d 41 (Mont. 2002). that this would violate a citizen's fundamental rights to a jury trial , due process , and equal protection , among others. Drug courts are not actual courts, but rather

13568-517: The state legislature enacted new legislation barring political parties from endorsing, making contributions to, or making expenditures on behalf of or against judicial candidates. In 1972, the new state constitution extended the terms of District Judges to six years. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 558 U.S. 310 (Sup.Ct. 2010)., Western Tradition Partnership ,

13696-482: The state needed another 21 District Court judges to bring workload levels down to acceptable levels. In the busiest judicial districts, 46 district court judges and four special masters were doing the work of 65 judges. In the 8th Judicial District, the number of divorce cases was so heavy that judges stopped hearing cases; all divorce cases were handled by special masters. In 2017, the state legislature considered several solutions. One bill would have added two judges in

13824-419: The state of Montana creates a contract which is to be performed both on tribal land and on state land, that attorney cannot evade the jurisdiction of the District Court by claiming tribal membership ( Crawford v. Roy , 577 P.2d 392 (Mont. 1978).). The unique constitutional provision for direct appeal of the ruling of an executive branch agency to a District Court has also been clarified by

13952-418: The state water rights proceeding was inter se . The Montana state legislature enacted a groundwater rights claiming law in 1961. The law mimicked the 1885 filing right system. Because the 1961 legislation suffered from the same faults as the 1885 legislation, water rights established under the 1961 groundwater law proved just as difficult to verify, examine, establish, and enforce. Montana voters approved

14080-426: The state within one year. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) was to administer the MWUA. The DNRC identified five watersheds where water rights most urgently needed adjudication: The Armells Creek , Bighorn River , Powder River , Rosebud Creek , and Tongue River basins. The scope of work soon proved overwhelming. In late 1974, based on its preliminary efforts in these five areas,

14208-483: The state's ownership of waters (irrespective of who owned the bed beneath the waters) gave the public access to these waters. In 1985, the year after Curran and Hildreth , the Montana Legislature codified these decisions in the Montana Stream Access Law . The law opened "all surface waters that are capable of recreational use [to] the public without regard to the ownership of the land underlying

14336-401: The state, declared them available solely for the use of the people, and declared that appropriation of water must be for beneficial purposes. Subsection 4 required the state to administer, control, and regulate water rights, and to establish a centralized record of such rights. At no time did the 1971 constitutional convention recognize the control over Native American water rights exercised by

14464-439: The state, misdemeanors not falling under the jurisdiction of another court, and special actions or proceedings not otherwise provided for by law. District Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the justice of the peace courts over misdemeanors committed concurrently with a felony, misdemeanors arising from a reduction in the charge of felony, and misdemeanors found during trial in a District Court. District Courts also have

14592-399: The state. The 1972 state constitution changed this by requiring that candidates for District Court be licensed to practice law in the state of Montana for at least five years and have resided in the state of Montana for at least two years. It deleted the age requirement, and prohibited judges from holding office in a political party. Article VII, Section 10 of the Montana constitution requires

14720-411: The state. There was only a single Water Court in the state, but it had four jurisdictions, based on the four largest watersheds within the state boundaries: The four judges of the Water Court were to be appointed from among the existing Montana District Court judges by the Governor of Montana . The legislature made retired district court judges eligible in 1981. Water judge candidates were proposed by

14848-514: The two prior lawsuits as well as initiate four others to protect the water rights of the tribes in Montana. Despite the action, the Montana Legislature enacted wide-ranging amendments to the MWUA which created a state Water Court. The 1979 amendments to the MWUA established a Water Court equivalent to Montana District Courts. The Water Court, whose headquarters were in Bozeman , was given jurisdiction over all water rights claims and adjudications in

14976-414: The venue for this lawsuit to the Water Court. Only four or five cases a year were expected to come before the court. The 1979 MWUA amendments contained no provision for terminating the Water Court once it accomplished its task of adjudicating all water rights. Theoretically, the Water Court could run out of work once its task was completed. However, in 1985 the Montana Legislature enacted a bill which gave

15104-421: The water claims, and make almost all the initial water allocation determinations. These are then reviewed by the Chief Water Judge. Only very rarely does a District Water Judge hear a case. In June 1979, the Montana Supreme Court ordered that all water rights claims be filed by April 30, 1982. This resulted in roughly 219,000 water rights claims in 85 sub-basins in the state of Montana. The legislature enacted

15232-473: The water master may be heard and the final decree is rendered. The Water Court has never held a trial in which all parties come together inter se . If two water appropriators come into conflict during this process, they may submit their dispute to the nearest Montana District Court. The District Court will then refer it to the Water Court, which will issue a decree for temporary relief pending final adjudication. All water rights claims will also be filed in

15360-512: The waters." Curran , Hildreth , and the Stream Access law created a new class of user (the public) who had a vested interest in seeing that navigable waters were protected so they could be used for things such as boating, fishing, floating, hunting, swimming, and other water-related pleasure activities. The tension between water rights claimants and recreational users has remained a contentious one ever since, with numerous lawsuits before

15488-434: The will of the 1972 state constitutional convention, which wanted judges elected by voters rather than appointed by governors. By 1992, 41 percent of all District Court judges were appointed, and had never faced voters. In 1992, the Montana Legislature referred a constitutional amendment to voters closing the appointment loophole by limiting appointed judges to the term of their predecessor. The "retain/do not retain" choice

15616-471: The work at times. Appeals from the Water Court are made directly to the Montana Supreme Court . The state finished verifying all water claims in 2015, and the Water Court will finish issuing final decrees in all hydrological basins by 2020. The Water Court's work is expect to end in 2028, although there is ongoing debate about termination in the state legislature. The state has not engaged in

15744-513: Was almost impossible to determine if a stream was fully adjudicated, even if all water rights on the source were allocated. Indeed, it is possible that water rights were established on fully adjudicated sources. The Montana Supreme Court also recognized the "first in time, first in right" doctrine of water rights in 1921 in Mettler v. Ames Realty Co. , 201 P. 702 (Mont. 1921). Winters rights were further defined in 1939, when

15872-537: Was also applied to incumbent elected judges as well. Voters approved the amendment in November 1992. Article V, Section 13 of the 1972 Montana state constitution gives the legislature the power of impeachment over judges. The Montana Legislature may prescribe causes for impeachment. Impeachment may be brought only by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives, and conviction and removal from office may occur only by

16000-537: Was also stymied, specifically, because Montana voters of the day overwhelmingly favored the Republican Party . The Democratic -controlled United States House of Representatives routinely blocked Montana statehood to retain the status quo balance of power in Congress. The impasse was broken in 1888 when the Democratic Party amended its platform to favor the statehood of Republican-controlled territories, and

16128-428: Was appointed Associate Water Judge on September 13, 2013, to fill McElyea's unexpired term. In early 2015, the DNRC finished verifying and examining the more than 219,000 water rights claims in Montana. Chief Water Judge McElyea asked the state legislature for assistance in the Water Court's review of the 90,000 early decisions. To help ensure that the Water Court was on firm legal ground for this review, McElyea asked

16256-456: Was empowered to do so. The 1972 constitution gave the Montana Senate the power to confirm or deny the nomination. Appointments were valid until the end of the next legislative session. If the appointed judge ran for election and was unopposed, voters were to be given the choice to "retain/do not retain". Although the constitution was silent on the issue, incumbent elected judges who ran unopposed were automatically re-elected to their judgeship. By

16384-432: Was the substitution and disqualification of District Court judges. If a District Court has not published rules regarding substitution and disqualification, the high court said, then Montana Supreme Court rules regarding the same hold sway. In State ex rel. District Court v. Whitaker , 618 P.2d 1097 (Mont. 1984)., the issue was whether a District Court could continue to operate even though its budget for

#637362