The Montana Political Practices Commission has ruled that Republican attorney general candidate, Daniels County Attorney Logan Olson, is ineligible to run for Montana attorney general in the 2024 primary election, but did not say he knowingly violated the law.
Commissioner Chris Gallus said he doesn’t have the power to act on Olson even if it’s found that he knowingly violated the law. In an opinion issued Thursday, Gallus said only a court can do that. Gallus dismissed the charges against Olson because he couldn’t prove that he broke the law.
Olson lost to incumbent Attorney General Austin Knudsen. Olson filed on the last day of eligibility to run. Knudsen told supporters at a rally in Dillon that he recruited Olson to run against him to raise money. Montana law prohibits people from recruiting other candidates to run for office for financial gain. Campaign finance records also show that Olson hired the same company as Knudsen to run his campaign and spent little money on it beyond required filing fees and financial reports.
Knudsen beat Olson in the primary, making some of the issues moot now that only Knudsen, not Olson, will advance to November’s general election to face Democratic candidate Ben Alke.
Knudsen defeated Olson by 148,435 votes to 32,059, but Olson still received 18 percent of the Republican primary vote.
Sheila Hogan, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, has filed lawsuits against both Olson and Knudsen for alleged election fraud. A separate, related lawsuit against Knudsen is still pending.
In a 25-page ruling, Political Action Commissioner Chris Gallus said information Olson provided to his office, including evidence that he was operating under the student practice provision — a state provision that allows third-year law students to do some work under a supervising attorney — demonstrated that Olson believed he was qualified, even though Gallus’ analysis showed he was not.
The case focuses on state requirements for the attorney general, as well as requirements for judges and county attorneys, and the decision also hinges on the difference between phrases like “active attorney” and “admitted to practice law.”
Judge Gallus determined that Olson was operating under the student attorney practice rules during the 2019-2020 school year, and he also found that the Montana Supreme Court had previously said that engaging in the practice of law does not require membership in the state bar.
“Olson relies on his argument that he has five years of experience practicing law as a dispositive factor in determining his eligibility to serve as attorney general,” the ruling states. “However, the constitutional requirement does not state ‘have five years of experience practicing law,’ but ‘has practiced law in the State of Montana for at least five years.'”
Gallus found that although he met the practice rules, he was not a full-time hospitalist by legal definition.
“Mr. Olson’s response suggests that the investigation ends there, based solely on (Montana Supreme Court) Shapiro,” the ruling reads. “However, this view is without merit, because Shapiro specifically addressed licensing, not work experience, and work experience is not a qualification for county attorney position.”
But Gallus said Olson likely believed he met the requirements for the position when he signed an affidavit saying he was qualified for the job. Gallus said Olson was likely in a rush because he applied on the last day he was eligible to serve. Moreover, because Olson, although a county attorney, likely did not look into the nuances of the qualifications, Gallus could not prove Olson acted knowingly or knew about the differences.
“While the evidence here indicates that Mr. Olson’s decision was hasty and insufficiently investigated, we are unable to conclude that Mr. Olson knowingly made false declarations in violation of (Montana law),” Gallus wrote. “While we have found no evidence to support a violation of (Montana law) as it stands, it is worth noting that even if a violation based on a false candidate declaration had been found, enforcement would not be pursued due to another provision of Montana election law.”
Gallus noted that under Montana law, an oath must be presumed valid unless proven differently by a court, not the commissioner.
“Absent court action, the candidacy oath is deemed valid and the COPP cannot enforce a violation, even in cases where a clearly false declaration is at issue,” Gallus wrote in the opinion.
Gallus determined, through his interpretation of the evidence and the law, that Olson should have known more about the attorney general’s qualifications, but that the oath may have been signed in a hurry and he found no conclusive evidence of intent.
“While the legal arguments supporting Mr. Olson’s claim that he is unfit to be attorney general are incorrect, he presents a plausible argument and supports it with verifiable facts,” the conclusion states. “Mr. Olson acted consciously and reached conclusions that, upon further investigation, would prove to Mr. Olson to be false. Ultimately, however, we cannot conclude, as with the other commissioners, that Mr. Olson knew his returns were false or that he knowingly engaged in deceptive conduct. While we can determine that Mr. Olson was negligent here, we cannot support a claim that he knowingly submitted returns that were false.”
Darrell Ehrlich is editor-in-chief of the nonprofit newsroom The Daily Montanan.
