HELENA — An advocacy organization and state officials are now involved in a legal battle over whether people committed to the Montana State Hospital should be allowed to vote.

Earlier this month, Disability Rights Montana joined in a lawsuit, arguing that many patients at the hospital met the legal requirements to vote but have been “systematically disenfranchised.” In their complaint, the organization alluded to long-running concerns about patient safety and staffing at MSH, and said patients deserve to have a voice in electing officials who oversee the facility.

“Voting allows any qualified elector to have a seat at the table and have a say in our state’s policies,” said Tal Goldin, Disability Rights Montana’s director of advocacy and attorney for the plaintiffs, in a news release. “Voting is one of the only powers patients at the State Hospital have to influence the most private decisions about their lives, including who they associate with, where they live, and what happens to their bodies. People with disabilities who meet all legal requirements to vote deserve the same opportunity to have their voices heard as any other Montana citizen.”

The Montana State Hospital, located in Warm Springs, near Anaconda, provides psychiatric treatment to people with serious mental illness. Some have been committed to the hospital through a civil procedure, while others have been sent there for treatment as part of a criminal sentencing.

The Montana Constitution says that people are not qualified to vote if they’re “serving a sentence for a felony in a penal institution” or “of unsound mind, as determined by a court.” The state has interpreted that to mean that people convicted of felonies can vote when on parole, probation or deferred sentence, but not when they’re in a correctional facility or the state hospital.

A patient at MSH, committed there after being sentenced for a felony, filed suit after he attempted to register to vote in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County and the county elections administrator rejected his application. In the suit, plaintiffs argued the state hospital is not a “penal institution,” and that people committed there should not be assumed to be “of unsound mind” unless a court specifically determines that.

The complaint said this patient’s right to vote and “the voting rights of all involuntarily committed individuals at the Hospital who otherwise meet the qualifications to vote—convicted felons or not—are in jeopardy unless the Court declares their rights as requested herein.”

A district court judge issued a temporary restraining order, allowing the plaintiff to register to vote.

However, Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office announced Tuesday that he had issued a binding legal opinion, stating that people convicted of a felony and placed at MSH are not eligible to vote. Knudsen argued that those criminally committed to the hospital are only held as long as their maximum prison sentence, earn time served while in the facility and can be sent to another correctional facility with no change in their status.

“All of these indicia show that when a person is at MSH, they are as a practical matter, ‘serving a sentence for a felony in a penal institution’ even if they are primarily receiving medical treatment while they are at MSH,” Knudsen wrote.

Knudsen argued that the constitution guarantees people in state institutions don’t have fewer rights than others in similar situations because of their mental illness, but that allowing this group to vote would essentially give them more rights than others convicted of the same crimes.

An attorney general’s official opinion has the weight of law unless it is overruled by a court.

Knudsen’s office also filed a motion seeking to overturn the temporary restraining order.

“The law is clear, convicted felons lose their right to vote while they are serving their sentence,” Knudsen said in a statement. “Serving time at Warm Springs while being treated for mental illness does not restore that right.”