Montana leads the West in the constitutional grant of transparency
Montana’s right to know isn’t just a legislative promise, it’s a constitutional guarantee that puts us a step ahead of neighboring states.
The Montana Constitution’s Article II, Section 9 says, “No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.”
In plain terms: you can access public records and watch government work, unless someone’s privacy clearly outweighs disclosure. That framework is the foundation of Montana’s open government.
How does that compare with our neighbors?
Idaho has no constitutional right to know. Access to government records and meetings exists only to the extent the Legislature chooses to grant it by statute. Idaho’s Public Records Act gives “every person” the right to inspect records unless a law expressly exempts them, and its Open Meeting Law says “the formation of public policy . . . shall not be conducted in secret.”
However, Idaho law allows legislative bodies to enter executive sessions and exclude members of the public. Although an executive session can only be held for a specific, enumerated reason, the Idaho Legislature could choose to expand that list at any time and make it easier to shield the government's work from the public.
The Wyoming Constitution states that “the sessions of each house and of the committee of the whole shall be open unless the business is such as requires secrecy.”
But access to records and to most non‑legislative meetings otherwise comes from statute: the state’s Public Records Act and Public Meetings Act. Although the Wyoming Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the comprehensive scope of those statutes, the protections remain statutory and can shift with politics rather than rest on a broad constitutional guarantee.
North Dakota’s Constitution guarantees open records and meetings “unless otherwise provided by law,” and the Legislature has used that clause to shield its own work. Under North Dakota law, legislative work records and communications, including bill drafts, research requests and “communications between a member of the legislative assembly and any person,” are explicitly confidential. That means citizens in North Dakota cannot access internal legislative materials, like bill drafts, research notes or communications with lobbyists about pending legislation, the kinds of records Montanans know as “junque files.”
By contrast, Montana’s Supreme Court in Saslav v. Howe required those same files to be released to the public.
South Dakota’s Constitution requires open legislative sessions, but the state’s core access rules live in statute, much like Wyoming. Courts have strictly enforced those laws, but the framework remains statutory and subject to amendment. Transparency in South Dakota has a unique enforcement mechanism that Montana should consider copying: a five-member Open Meetings Commission that administers transparency laws. This commission gives citizens somewhere to turn when doors close that should stay open.
The bottom line: Montana’s right to know is stronger than our neighbors’ because it’s in our constitution and has been reinforced by our courts. You have a right to ask for emails, budgets, draft files and meeting minutes, and you should expect to see them.
But the right to know only serves transparency when Montanans — like you — exercise that right. So use it. If you don’t know where to start, let us know. If you hit a wall, we’re here to help. Visit montanatransparencyproject.org. What do you want to know?
Ruben Castren, Montana Transparency Project.