HELENA — Two veteran Montana legislators filed a lawsuit Monday challenging Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s recent opinion that could prevent them from appearing on the November ballot.
Legal fight targets AG opinion on term limits
Republican Reps. Steve Fitzpatrick of Great Falls and Llew Jones of Conrad asked a state court in Helena to bar the state from enforcing Knudsen’s interpretation of the state’s term-limit amendment. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon in Helena.
The lawsuit comes after Knudsen issued an opinion last week — requested in July by Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell — that reverses a more than decade-old legal understanding about how to calculate time served under Montana’s 1992 term-limit amendment.
“One of the basic principles of constitutional law is that you don't make radical changes in election law right before, or in the middle of an election,”
The quotation above came from Fitzpatrick, who told MTN he questioned both the substance of Knudsen’s decision and its timing as ballots are prepared for printing.
Background: a decades-long dispute over calculation timing
The crux of the dispute is how to count the eight-year limit in the state constitution’s amendment that bars state lawmakers and executive officers from holding the same office for more than eight years in any 16-year period.
State legal guidance on that calculation has shifted over time:
- 1997 — Then-Attorney General Joe Mazurek issued an opinion saying eligibility should be calculated at the end of the term a candidate is running for.
- 2012 — After the Legislature adopted a statute attempting to define “current term,” then-Attorney General Steve Bullock issued an opinion saying the tally should begin at the start of the term the official seeks.
- 2026 — Knudsen concluded the Legislature lacked authority to redefine constitutional terms and said the Bullock opinion was invalid, effectively reverting the standard and narrowing eligibility.
| Year | Attorney General | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 1997 | Joe Mazurek | Calculate at end of term being sought |
| 2012 | Steve Bullock | Calculate from start of term being sought |
| 2026 | Austin Knudsen | Reversed Bullock; Legislature cannot redefine constitutional term |
What the change means for lawmakers
Under the Bullock interpretation long relied upon by some officeholders, a legislator could complete eight years in the House, serve eight years in the Senate, and then return to the House without running afoul of the eight-in-16 rule. Knudsen’s opinion rejects the idea that the Legislature could define “current term” in a way that departs from the original constitutional language, and he directed the state to apply his interpretation.
The immediate result: Fitzpatrick, the House majority leader, and Jones have filed suit contending that enforcing Knudsen’s opinion now would improperly alter longstanding election practice and could disqualify them from running.
Timing and stakes
Fitzpatrick has raised particular concern about the timing of the opinion coming as ballots are being printed and the election calendar advances. He argued the change represents a late alteration to election law that voters and candidates have relied upon for years.
The legal challenge seeks injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the opinion while the court resolves whether Knudsen’s interpretation is correct. The case will test competing views of constitutional construction, the scope of the Legislature’s authority to clarify constitutional terms, and the role of the attorney general’s opinions in setting election rules ahead of ballots being finalized.
What to watch next
- The scheduled hearing in Helena, where a judge will consider whether to block enforcement of the opinion.
- Whether Secretary of State procedures for certifying ballots and candidates will be affected if the court intervenes.
- Potential broader implications for other current or prospective candidates who may be impacted by a shift in how the eight-year limit is tallied.
The outcome could reshape who is eligible to serve and run in Montana’s Legislature and will likely draw attention from lawmakers, clerks and candidates navigating the coming election season.
Reporting to this point has identified the parties, the underlying constitutional amendment, prior attorney general opinions and the timeline of the recent request by the Senate president. The court hearing Tuesday will provide the first detailed legal arguments in open court over whether the attorney general’s opinion may be enforced before the November election.
