Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s decision to withdraw Steve Bullock’s 2012 term-limit opinion will undoubtedly be portrayed as a dramatic change in Montana election law. The history tells a different story.
The real change occurred in 2012.
In 1997, Democratic Attorney General Joe Mazurek interpreted the term-limit amendment Montana voters had added to the Constitution just five years earlier. His interpretation remained the state’s governing rule for 15 years. Then-Attorney General Bullock replaced it with a different interpretation in 2012. Knudsen has now withdrawn Bullock’s opinion and returned Montana to the rule that preceded it.
That distinction matters because term limits were imposed by the voters, not the Legislature, the Secretary of State or the Attorney General. Our responsibility is to follow the Constitution they adopted, not gradually reshape it through administrative interpretations.
Article IV, Section 8 says ballot eligibility is determined by looking at a candidate’s service at the end of the “current term of that office.” Knudsen reads “current term” as the term presently underway when election officials are making their ballot determination. That is also the interpretation Mazurek reached in 1997.
Bullock’s 2012 opinion moved away from that approach and ultimately produced an “eight-year break in service” rule. Under that rule, eight years away from an office could restore a candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot.
There is a straightforward problem with that approach: Montana’s Constitution never created an eight-year-break exception. It tells election officials to determine whether someone has served eight or more years in the office during the applicable 16-year period. Knudsen concluded that the break-in-service rule cannot be derived from the constitutional language and formally rejected it.
There is also a larger constitutional principle involved. The Legislature has every right to enact laws implementing term limits and establishing procedures for administering elections. But it cannot change the meaning of a constitutional amendment adopted by Montana voters. Changing the Constitution requires going through the amendment process and ultimately returning the question to the people.
The same should be true regardless of the political party involved. Mazurek was a Democrat. Bullock was a Democrat. Knudsen is a Republican. The question is not which attorney general we prefer. The question is which interpretation best follows the Constitution voters enacted.
For 15 years after Mazurek issued his opinion, Montana operated under that interpretation. Bullock changed course in 2012. Fourteen years later, Knudsen has restored the earlier rule.
That isn’t rewriting Montana’s term limits. It is returning their interpretation to where it stood before they were rewritten.
By: Senator Vince Ricci
August 18, 2026