Gazette opinion: High court should tackle Green Party ballot issue

Even though we agree with Stapleton, we're not sure it's for the same reasons. 

We believe this case should make its way to the state Supreme Court because when it comes to questions of constitutionality, ballot choice and voters, the public should have the assurance of the highest court that the decision rendered by Helena District Court Judge James Reynolds is consistent with Montana law. In other words, if Reynolds has correctly applied the state's petition signature rules, then the court should affirm it, and we can trust that the law was followed. We believe that's what Stapleton wants as well. 

An entire state's choices when it comes to our elected officials shouldn't necessarily rest with one judge in one district court. That should be something that merits the attention of an appellate court regardless.

"This has never been a legal case, it's always been a political case," Stapleton said.

We'd agree. 

After all, the lawsuit was filed by the Montana Democratic Party and a handful of other politically active plaintiffs. 

Despite the crocodile tears that are being shed by the partisans for their deep concern for the integrity of the voting process, the real reason is that the Democrats are worried that a Green Party candidate will siphon votes from incumbent Sen. Jon Tester who is running against Republican in what will likely be a close race.

The Democrats strategy is simple and purely political: Bump the Green Party and Tester's path forward becomes a lot more certain. 

Meanwhile, we can't help but think that Stapleton, a partisan Republican, is engaging in an equally political battle by asking the state's Supreme Court to reconsider. 

However, we also think there are issues beyond a political scope that need deep consideration by an impartial panel. And while we agree with Stapleton that this lawsuit should be about the legal arguments, so far it's been resoundingly political.

Reynolds order disqualified the Green Party because he was persuaded that enough of the signatures were invalid and the requirements were not met.

If the signatures on the ballot did not meet the legal definition and criteria, then Reynolds has done the voters of Montana a favor by maintaining the integrity of the ballot. After all, anyone could scribble a name, right? However, the law requires more.

However, invalidating signatures because the signatures did not look like the voting cards is also troubling. How close is close? And how many signatures were knocked off the petitions?

We believe a higher court review is necessary to make sure those that were invalidated were done so reasonably. One judge should probably not have that much power. 

While we understand that fraud could be committed by just looking up names and signing them to the ballot, we also believe there may be circumstances where a rushed signature or an injury would prevent an honest signature from matching. Those voices should still be counted.

We also find Stapleton's worry about voter inclusion a bit too convenient. You may remember that during the special election to fill former Rep. Ryan Zinke's seat, Stapleton opposed a mail-in ballot which would have and undoubtedly did make sure more Montanans had access to the ballot.

If Stapleton was really so concerned about inclusion, it seems he would have campaigned hard then for the mail ballot. Instead, he lobbied against it because of the belief that it favored Democrats. 

Not using a mail-in ballot would have cost the state more money and would have likely resulted in a poorer turn out. 

It's hard for us to believe he has had some sort of civic conversion, and truly concerned for access. Instead, we believe that that Stapleton serves as an effective political counterweight to the Democratic party which would seem to have won the district court battle, but may not the entire war.

And now the Supreme Court has a chance to rise above the partisan rancor and truly take the Montana voters into consideration.  

There may be no greater example of grass-roots democracy in Montana than a ballot or petition. Those are the things that come from voters and go right to the voters to decide. There is no legislature, no governor veto -- just taking an issue to the voters. 

That's why we must be assured that all the rules are followed and that our standards are exacting when following Montana law.

There may be no other more pressing issue for the Montana State Supreme Court. This decision will not just be important for the 2018 election, it will be important for Montana in the future as the ballot initiatives