8—Petitioners’ Prehearing
Quality, 1999 MT 248, ¶ 63, 988 P.2d 1236, 1246.
Under different
circumstances, the Court would apply a strict scrutiny analysis in
balancing the fundamental rights of the public against State action.
See Id. However, in this case, the Constitution
instance where the Court should perform a balancing test—where
privacy interests are legitimately asserted. In this case, the MDOL
has not asserted any privacy interests.
Therefore, the Court need not apply a strict scrutiny analysis
this case, and should instead simply look to whether the MDOL
violated its clear constitutional duty. The Montana Supreme has
applied this type of clear constitutional duty analysis in other
cases, and only looked to whether the governmental entity had
fulfilled its obligation. See Montanans for the Coal Trust v. State,
2000 MT 13, 996 P.2d 856 (2000). The Court in this case need only
determine if the MDOL violated its clear legal duty. Under the facts
of this case, the answer is unquestionably “yes.”
A Writ of Mandamus is Proper and Should Issue in This
Case, Because the MDOL has a Clear Legal Duty to Provide
the Requested Information, and Petitioners Have No Other
Speedy and Adequate Remedy Available
