act on behalf of the people and, to a very large extent, the whole concept of representation depends upon the ability of the people to make their wishes known to their representatives. Noerr, 365 U.S. at 137, 81 S.Ct. 523. If we deemed citizens’ lawful and protected efforts to influence government “state action,” then citizens could be held liable whenever their political activities played a role in government action later determined to have been unconstitutional. Such a holding would create a new category of state action (lobbying) and a new battlefield — the nation’s courtrooms — in political contests. Such a holding also would have a chilling effect on legitimate political expression in derogation of the First Amendment. It would threaten to deprive governmen 73, 578 (1995) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); In re: Yellowstone River,
recognizing class of one equal protection claim where ordinance targeted a single individual on basis that state action was irrational and arbitrary holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding statute denying putative father standing to bring legitimation action under statute in effect at the time did not violate due process or equal protection of state or federal constitutions holding that montana constitutions equal protection clause protects against arbitrary and discriminate state action  holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause