MONTANANS FOR a BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET COMMITTEE Et Al. v. HARPER Et Al.
Headline: Emergency denial lets Montana keep a court order blocking a “Balanced Federal Budget” ballot initiative, preventing its sponsors from placing the convention-seeking amendment on the November 1984 ballot.
Holding: The Justice denied the emergency request to pause Montana’s order, allowing the state Supreme Court’s decision to bar the balanced-budget initiative from the ballot because the state court rested on state constitutional grounds.
- Prevents the balanced-budget initiative from appearing on Montana’s 1984 ballot.
- Stops backers from using this ballot method to trigger a federal convention.
- Confirms state-court interpretation of a state constitution can block a ballot measure.
Summary
Background
Applicants asked a Justice to pause (stay) a Montana Supreme Court mandate that forbids placing a “Balanced Federal Budget” initiative on Montana’s November 1984 ballot. The proposed initiative would have directed Montana’s legislature to ask Congress, under the Constitution’s amendment process, to call a convention to consider a federal balanced-budget amendment. The Montana court held the measure unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution’s Article V and also separately held it invalid under the Montana Constitution. The court issued a per curiam order saying a written opinion would follow, but the order itself established an independent state-law ground for the decision.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the Justice should suspend Montana’s order and allow the initiative onto the ballot while the legal dispute continued. The Justice found that the Montana Supreme Court rested its decision on the state constitution, and that the state court is the final authority on interpreting its own constitution. The Justice said applicants’ attempt to distinguish an earlier, similar in-chambers decision (Uhler v. AFL-CIO) was unpersuasive. For the same reasons given in that decision, the Justice denied the emergency request to stay the Montana court’s mandate, leaving the state court’s bar in place.
Real world impact
The denial keeps the balanced-budget measure off the 1984 ballot and prevents its supporters from using this ballot method to seek a federal convention. Because the state court based its ruling on the Montana Constitution, that state-law ground controls whether the initiative can proceed. The Justice’s order is a procedural denial of a stay, not a new national ruling on the amendment process.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?