Broadview woman asks court to prevent deadline that would make data center signatures moot

In Wednesday's filing, Solberg petitioned the Yellowstone County District Court to issue an emergency temporary restraining order preventing the implementation of a July 13 deadline for signatures. Until Monday, the county had set an Aug. 12 deadline for signature gatherers, and Solberg and others had been working on that timeline for weeks.

It’s the second temporary restraining order requested of the court by Solberg. The first looked to permanently halt the county’s previously proposed restrictions on signature gathering. That motion is still pending.

“Now, Yellowstone County is attempting to impose another unconstitutional barrier to the signature gathering activity,” attorney Brian Miller wrote on behalf of Solberg.

The filing, shared by Miller, noted that Yellowstone County had given Solberg the August deadline since the start.

It was changed Monday, after Yellowstone County learned of a new law shared with them by an attorney representing data center developer Quantica Infrastructure. The law, requiring additional time to process signatures, sailed through the state Legislature last year without any opponents. Yellowstone County learned of it last week.

Yet in spite of the recent county memo stating the deadline had passed weeks ago, the filing referenced an email from election administrator Dayna Causby that Yellowstone County Elections Office will “process” all petition submissions received by Aug. 3 at 5 p.m. All signatures were to be processed by 5 p.m. Aug. 6, Causby wrote in the email.

“This shows that the July 13, 2026 deadline, as applied in this case, serves no ... rational basis, is completely illusory and only acts as an unnecessary and wholly arbitrary burden on Solberg’s constitutional rights,” the filing reads.

The 2025 law’s stated intent was to guarantee “the right of the people to exercise the rights of initiative and referendum in a local government unit.”

Miller wrote that the objective of the bill would not be compromised at all by requiring Yellowstone County to continue to accept signatures, as the county didn’t share issues with it in the past. Volunteers, unphased by the county’s deadline interpretation, were still gathering signatures Tuesday as the memo became public.

In asking for the halt on the new deadline, Miller wrote that such an action would be in the public interest.

“The creation of data centers in Montana presents a direct threat to the water, land and liberty of the citizens of Montana,” the attorney wrote. “The establishment of data centers in Montana will likely cause irreparable harm to the people of this State, as they have done in many others. The citizens of Yellowstone County have a strong desire and need to protect themselves from this intrusion since the Yellowstone County Commissioners are taking no action.”

Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito cautioned commissioners Tuesday around putting any regulations on data centers because of another recently passed state law — The Right to Compute Act. The sponsor of the bill, Yellowstone County Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, told the Billings Gazette it restricts all local regulations of data centers, as grassroots efforts crop up across Montana to regulate the controversial projects.

On Wednesday, Montana Conservation Voters called for the Yellowstone County Commissioners to place the initiative on the ballot. A voter initiative still needs to gather 15% of a county's registered voters signatures, as required by law. 

In the group's press release, the group said the change in deadline was part of a larger pattern of missteps by the county. First, there was its initial lawsuit challenging the legality of the initiative after granting approval, then the government considered restricting signature gathering and finally, the attorney's office changed the deadline for the initiative itself. 

"Yellowstone County residents have done their part," MCV Political Director Molly Bell said. "They showed up, they signed, they gathered signatures under the rules the county gave them. If commissioners are serious about restoring public trust after this mess, there is one clear way to do it: put the question on the ballot and let voters decide.”