Political practices commissioner rules that AG candidate was ineligible

The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices has ruled that Republican Attorney General candidate and Daniels County Attorney Logan Olson was not qualified to run for Montana Attorney General in the 2024 primary election, but stopped short of saying he knowingly violated the law.

Commissioner Chris Gallus said that even if he had found that Olson knowingly violated the law, he lacked the enforcement to do anything about it. Only a court could, he said as part of the opinion issued Thursday. Because Gallus could not prove that Olson broke the law, he dismissed the complaint against him.

Olson was defeated by incumbent Attorney General Austin Knudsen. Olson filed for candidacy on the last day of eligibility.  Knudsen told a crowd of supporters at a Dillon gathering that he had recruited Olson to run against him so that he could raise more money. Montana law prohibits enticing another candidate to run for office for financial gain.  And campaign finance records show that Olson hired the same company to handle his campaign as Knudsen, and seemed to spend little money besides the required filing fees and finance reporting.

Knudsen bested Olson in the primary, rendering part of the issue moot because only Knudsen, not Olson, will advance to November’s general election to face Democrat Ben Alke.

Knudsen beat Olson, 148,435 to 32,059. Still, Olson garnered 18% of the primary Republican votes.

Sheila Hogan, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, filed complaints against both Olson and Knudsen for campaign violations. A different but related case against Knudsen remains ongoing.

In a 25-page ruling, Commissioner of Political Practices Chris Gallus said the information that Olson provided to his office, including proof that he was working under the student practice rule — a state rule that allows third-year law students to do some work under a supervising attorney — proved that Olson was under the belief that he was qualified, even though Gallus’ analysis showed he was not.

The case zeroes in on the state requirements for attorney general versus those for a judge or county attorney. And the decision also hinges on the differences between phrases such as “active practice” and “admitted to practice.”

Gallus determined that Olson had worked under the student practice rule during the 2019-2020 academic year. He also found that the Montana Supreme Court has previously said that practicing law did not mean that a person had to be admitted to the state bar.

“Olson relies on the assertion that he has been admitted to practice law for five years as the dispositive element determining his qualifications for attorney general,” the decision said. “However, the constitutional requirements do not specify ‘admitted to practice for five years,’ but ‘admitted to practice law in Montana who has engaged in the active practice thereof for at least five years.’”

Gallus determined that while he met the practice rule, he had not been admitted for the full time, by legal definition.

“Mr. Olson’s response suggests that the inquiry ends here, based entirely on (the Montana Supreme Court case) Shapiro,” the decision said. “However, this position lacks merit because the Shapiro ruling specifically addressed admission rather than active practice since active practice is not a qualification for the position of county attorney.”

But, Gallus said that Olson likely believed he met the criteria for the office when he signed an affidavit that certified he was eligible for the office. Gallus said that since Olson filed for the office on the final day of eligibility, it was likely hasty. Furthermore, even though Olson is a county attorney, he probably did not research the nuances of the qualifications, and therefore Gallus could not prove that Olson acted with intent, or even knew about the differences.

“The evidence here, while pointing to a hasty and minimally researched decision on the part of Mr. Olson, does not allow me to conclude that Mr. Olson knowingly made a false declaration in violation of (Montana law),” Gallus wrote. “While under the current circumstances I would not find evidence to support a violation of (Montana law), it is worth noting that if I do find a violation based on a false Oath of Candidacy, another provision of Montana election law leaves me unable to pursue enforcement.”

Gallus pointed out that Montana law must presume the oath is valid, unless proven different by a court of law, not the commissioner.

“Without action by a court of law, an Oath of Candidacy is presumed valid and COPP is unable to enforce a violation, even where patently false declarations are at issue,” Gallus said in the opinion.

If anything, Gallus determined through the evidence and a reading of the law that while Olson should have known more about the qualifications for attorney general, the oath may have been hastily signed,  and found no conclusive evidence of intent.

“Although Mr. Olson’s legal argument supporting the assertion that he is qualified to serve as attorney general is faulty, he does offer a reasonable argument and supports it with verifiable facts,” the conclusion states. “Mr. Olson consciously engaged in conduct and formed conclusions that upon further inspection would have demonstrated to Mr. Olson that he was incorrect. But, ultimately, like other commissioners, I cannot reach a finding that Mr. Olson knew his declaration was untrue or that he intentionally acted deceptively. While I could comfortably render a determination Mr. Olson acted negligently here, I cannot support a claim he intentionally submitted his declaration knowing it was false.”

Darrell Ehrlick is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Montanan, a nonprofit newsroom.