Butte data center petitioners file suit over submission deadline; restraining order approved

A judge in Butte-Silver Bow County issued a restraining order Wednesday afternoon that keeps the status quo in place amid a legal dispute between the city-county and a group of ballot petitioners over when the legal deadline is for the group to have their signatures submitted and verified.

The group 406 People First, behind a ballot initiative that seeks to put a question to voters any time Butte-Silver Bow tries to allow a data center in the county, filed a lawsuit in district court Wednesday after being notified their signatures for the initiative were submitted too late and thus invalid.

Despite being previously advised by Butte-Silver Bow County’s clerk and recorder the deadline to submit signatures would be Aug. 17, Denise Kelly and 406 People First volunteers were informed Tuesday that their signatures failed to meet a statutory deadline.

PDF 406 People First Lawsuit

The group’s suit says the law cited by Clerk and Recorder Cindy Sherman does not allow an election administrator to invalidate otherwise valid signatures when the group behind a petition followed her written approval throughout the process.

They asked a judge to honor the original deadline Sherman gave the group, said the signatures have already been verified, and said the judge should require the initiative to be certified for the November election after a hearing.

District Court Judge Frank Joseph issued the temporary restraining order on Wednesday afternoon as well as an order for Butte-Silver Bow County to show cause as to why he shouldn’t issue a preliminary injunction in the matter.

Wednesday’s order temporarily prohibits Butte-Silver Bow and Sherman from destroying, returning, segregating or refusing to count petition sheets; excluding any signatures under the July 13 deadline she says should apply; treating the petition as rejected or taking any action that would bar the petition from being certified.

PDF 406 People First TRO

Butte-Silver Bow and Sherman will also have to preserve all petition records, continue processing accepted sheets and complete ballot-preparation work for the initiative. They were ordered to file a status report by Aug. 18.

The order also says that the group has gathered enough signatures, so Butte-Silver Bow and Sherman should send it to the Secretary of State’s Office “and take any additional steps necessary to ensure the imitative (sic) is placed on the November ballot.”

The show-cause hearing was set for Aug. 19 at 9:30 a.m.

County Attorney Matt Enrooth said the county had agreed to the restraining order that was requested by the group Wednesday pending a hearing, after which a judge will decide whether or not the petition can move forward.

Enrooth affirmed the judge’s order granting the injunction directs the county to proceed processing the ballot initiative and to send it to Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen while the hearing is pending.

Sherman’s decision that the signatures were submitted too late emerged the same day a judge in Yellowstone County said the county attorney there was correct when he declared that a similar petition drive’s deadline had already passed.

County officials there and attorneys for a data center company discovered a 2025 state law that says signatures for local ballot initiatives must be submitted four weeks before the certification deadline, first reported by the Billings Gazette last week.

While Butte officials had indeed told 406 People First through the process that the deadline for turning in signatures was Aug. 17, according to documents, in her letter dated Aug. 10, Sherman told Cottonwood Environmental Law Attorney John Meyer, who represents 406 People First, that under the state law, the signature-submission deadline was actually July 13.

“Upon review,” Sherman concluded, “it was determined that the 406 People First local initiative does not meet the requirements set forth in the statute 13-28-206 MCA.”

When asked for a follow-up statement Wednesday morning, the clerk and recorder declined to comment.

That decision would effectively nullify the thousands of signatures collected for the measure to qualify for the November ballot. According to the group’s lawsuit, it submitted 4,518 total signatures over weeks, and Sherman accepted 3,850 as valid out of 3,652 that were necessary for the measure to be certified for the ballot.

Kelly said she was less than pleased with what she viewed as Butte-Silver Bow County officials moving the goal posts.

“Changing the date after we made our goal is like watching Charlie Brown planning to kick a football as Lucy yanks it away,” she said.

In a written response shared Tuesday night, the group wrote: “We followed every instruction our local government gave us, and the people of Butte-Silver Bow communicated loudly and clearly their desire to have a say about future data center applications. Now, they’ve changed the rules on the fly to cater to everyone except the people of Butte.”

The initiative aims to effectively create a resolution that would require two-thirds of registered Butte-Silver Bow voters approve any new data center in the county.

In a statement Wednesday morning, Butte-Silver Bow Chief Executive J.P. Gallagher pointed out he wasn’t involved with “the drafting, distribution or decision-making” process surrounding Sherman’s letter from this week.

“It is important for the public to understand that the chief executive does not have authority over ballot initiatives, nor does this office oversee the legal or procedural timelines associated with them,” he wrote.

Gallagher had said the state law raises proper questions as to whether B-SB ballot signatures collected under the initiative meet statutory requirements.

“If the deadline concern raised in Yellowstone County is accurate and grounded in Montana Code, then it’s reasonable to assume the same legal standard would apply statewide,” Gallagher told the Standard, adding that his goal is “to ensure that whatever moves forward in Butte‑Silver Bow complies with Montana law and that residents have clarity on the process."

But the group’s lawsuit argued that the state law infringes on the group’s right to petition and that Sherman’s prior guidance surrounding the petition and submission of signatures should stand.

“The representation was not merely abstract legal advice,” Meyer wrote in the suit. “It was an operative administrative determination of when this particular approved petition could circulate and be filed, made by the official who controlled approval and filing.”

Reached by phone after the restraining order was handed down, Kelly offered a comment.

“I think it’s a start,” she said. “Justice isn’t done.”