It would implement a change to temporary restraining order laws that was struck out of Fitzpatrick’s SB 191 during the committee process. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, passed the House. SB 191, the flagship bill, directs courts to adopt the ostensibly more stringent federal court standards for injunctions, which could be relevant in legal challenges to bills passed by the Legislature. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, that seeks to change the standards for judges to grant temporary restraining orders and injunctions in Montana courts, all passed both chambers in the first half of the session and now await Gianforte’s signature. ✅ SB 191, SB 134, SB 135 and SB 136, a suite of bills from Sen.Here’s a roundup of what passed, what didn’t, and what could be next. attorney for the state of Montana, said last Friday. And Republican lawmakers have signaled they’ll continue their judicial push in the second half of the session, possibly in the form of constitutional amendments that require two-thirds votes in the Legislature and approval by the voters. Kerns’ proposal was the last to go up for a vote, and some Republicans teamed up with Democrats to kill the bill 46-54.Īs the legislative saying goes, though, no idea is truly dead until sine die. Each bill died, either in committee or on the floor. Scot Kerns’ House Bill 595 on the floor sounded the death knell for a quartet of bills to allow or mandate partisan judicial races (and, in some cases, other nonpartisan positions), a response to the 2022 race for Montana Supreme Court. Some particularly dramatic overhauls stalled in committee or on the floor ahead of the transmittal deadline, such as a constitutional amendment referral to give the Legislature authority to appoint Supreme Court justices, and to reduce the number of justices from seven to six and then to five over the next several years.Īnd last Thursday, the defeat of Great Falls GOP Rep. Not every court bill flew through the Legislature as fast as Fitzpatrick’s SB 191. I think it’s just taking good ideas by themselves.” “So I think you saw a lot of legislators picking that out, whether it’s the Judicial Standards Commission or, I mean, they even had one for the district court council, and how that appropriates money in district courts. “Twenty-two different areas that even just by the Constitution, we can direct and put the checks and balances back in the judiciary,” he said. In 22 different instances in the section establishing the judiciary, the 1972 Montana Constitution assigns some deference to law or the Legislature, House Speaker Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, said last week. Republicans say it’s a matter of asserting the Legislature’s role as a check on the other branches of government and opening up the internal processes of the judiciary to public (and partisan) scrutiny. In other words, lawmakers haven’t shied away from attempts to reshape the court this session. But the new language his bill proposes reflects an argument the state attorney general made in defending a GOP-backed abortion law in court - that it’s too easy for plaintiffs to obtain injunctions in Montana. It seeks to raise Montana courts’ standards for granting injunctive relief - a court order that preserves the status quo.įitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, maintains that SB 191 has nothing to do with the number of bills that have faced constitutional challenges or injunctions since the 2021 session, several of which have generated court-ordered injunctions blocking their implementation. It’s the byproduct of a collision between a relatively static institution - the state Supreme Court, with its strong association with the Montana Constitution - and a surging, ideologically driven Republican Party that has won power in the Legislature and executive branches of state government on promises to disrupt the status quo.Īs an example: One of the Legislature’s major court bills this session, Senate Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick’s Senate Bill 191, currently awaits the signature of Republican Gov. It’s true that compared to last session - when debate about legislation giving the governor unilateral power to fill judicial vacancies spiraled into a broader fight about judicial transparency and the extent to which the Legislature can or should be involved in the court’s business - judicial bills have occupied less space thus far in the 2023 session, with its focus on a $2.4 billion state budget surplus and focus on a conservative social agenda.īut the inter-branch conflict is about more than any particular piece of legislation. If any political observers were tempted to think that the heat between Republican lawmakers and the Montana court system would dissipate between last legislative session and this one, they were thoroughly disproven by day 45 of Montana’s 68th Legislature.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |