HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a proposed ballot measure intended to simplify the process for introducing ballot measures in the future.

Justices ruled 5-2 that the measure, currently called Ballot Issue #8, did not violate state requirements that a single constitutional amendment can’t make multiple separate changes to the Montana Constitution.

“We’re very grateful to the Montana Supreme Court for agreeing with us that the attorney general’s finding of legal insufficiency for Ballot Issue #8 was incorrect,” said SK Rossi, a spokesperson for Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring the measure.

Montanans Decide argues the Montana Legislature has passed laws making it harder for the public to propose and pass ballot issues. The Montana Constitution already guarantees the people the right to pass laws and amendments through ballot measures, but Ballot Issue #8 would expand that to include a right to “impartial, predictable, transparent, and expeditious processes” for proposing those measures. It would seek to prevent “interference from the government or the use of government resources to support or oppose the ballot issue.”

Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office argued the measure “implicitly amended” multiple provisions in the state constitution, including by limiting the “power and authority of public officials to speak officially on ballot issues that affect those officials’ public duties” and by putting restrictions on judges and on the Legislature. Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring Ballot Issue #8, disagreed – and the majority of justices sided with them.

“Its provisions operate together to define and protect a single constitutional right—the people’s exercise of initiative and referendum,” wrote Justice Katherine Bidegaray in the majority opinion. “They are closely related components of one constitutional design.”

Bidegaray’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Jim Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Beth Baker and Ingrid Gustafson.

Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice Jim Rice each wrote dissenting opinions, saying they would have upheld Knudsen’s decision to disallow Ballot Issue #8. Rice said the language restricting government interference with a ballot issue was not closely related and should have been a separate vote. Swanson agreed with Rice and said the measure’s attempt to fix a timeline for legal cases surrounding ballot measures was also a separate substantial change.

In a statement, Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for Knudsen’s office, reacted to the decision.

“This decision only further muddies the courts’ jurisprudence on ballot issue questions,” he said. “This initiative would violate the separate vote requirement by amending multiple parts of the Montana Constitution, but the court contradicted its prior rulings. Attorney General Knudsen will continue to neutrally apply the separate vote requirement in his review of ballot initiatives.”

The court’s decision means that Knudsen’s office will now need to approve ballot language for Ballot Issue #8. Once that language is finalized, Montanans Decide could begin gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

However, last year, sponsors of another initiative went to the Supreme Court to argue that the ballot statements Knudsen prepared were misleading. If Montanans Decide object to their ballot statements, that could further delay signature gathering while the case plays out in court.

“Regardless, we’re going to push as hard as we can to get those petitions into the hands of voters and let them sign and support if they so choose,” said Rossi.

Rossi said the legal battle this measure has gone through – and the possibility of more to come – shows why Ballot Issue #8 is needed.

“The state Legislature, and also statewide elected officials, have taken every opportunity to create burdens and hurdles and rigamarole for campaigns to get through in order to just get to the signature gathering phase, and then to get through the signature gathering phase onto the ballot, and then get through the election phase,” said Rossi. “The reason we filed this initiative is just to make sure that the process is simple, that the timeline is clear, and that Montanans can have their will heard when they want to propose and pass laws that they deem worthy.”

Though the alleged sex trafficking on Jeffrey Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little Saint James, has dominated the national discourse recently, another Epstein property has largely stayed out of the news — but perhaps not for long. A ranch outside Santa Fe, New Mexico, that belonged to the disgraced financier has been the subject of on-and-off investigations, and many are now reexamining what role the ranch may have played in Epstein’s crimes.

What is the ranch in question?

The compound, named Zorro Ranch, includes a 30,000-square-foot mansion that “sits on a ridge overlooking thousands of acres of southwestern land,” said The New York Times. The ranch is in the middle of the desert, an area with low population density where the “nearest neighbors are miles away and most everyone minds their own business.”