[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6118817,"mediaKeyId","2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e","parentId",2715927,"title","Sponsor seeks power to vacate writs of mandamus; legal groups warn of separation-of-powers risk","audioSeconds",2801,"startMs",10701000,"endMs",13502000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e&start=10701&end=13502","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e/thumbnail_10701000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6118817/Montana/Sponsor-seeks-power-to-vacate-writs-of-mandamus-legal-groups-warn-of-separation-of-powers-risk","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6118817-57910c4c1e7a6dc6baf2a3036708d705/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148519&Signature=aDiwvWrG-AyNRBawNWKL4ioJHvYrFvChVfHOe3NzkaDvxtstaAqoadq9SlrhpXTf6Nt-ZHE4xbUybUA~YrCpBV86~WdR05Vyk2eezmHXzOEhpwvrHrheVgagO4juNrrKnA5-YbiN9aDzfTrG3sMB1uGIIHCPCFd-ymY3tYhlXOaiJKghx2Nlgy1sWBizvEXRzWthF5SM7k5nnRW6Hl~BE5cO1IL1-7XZ62XxGw8Jt6q5mzrVMA6gt9u207NANap5zjb8vVD7NZaERXDLzcXykHC8qgsv7kDCcqrDLKJWMsiF92gPo5KJF5fcbW1BOP~7~XLe6VuWcuQ9jJsOJ3EKrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Barry Usher presented Senate Bill 21 to the House Judiciary Committee, saying the bill would let a combination of executive and legislative leaders vacate a writ of mandamus that orders a public official to perform ministerial duties.

Usher said the bill was prompted by a disputed episode last session in which a court ordered the governor and secretary of state to take actions related to a vetoed bill; Usher said that order compelled officials to do things they could not physically perform and described the court action as an overreach. “Sometimes humans make errors, and when you're at the highest court and you can't go anywhere else, there's gotta be a relief valve,” Usher said.

Under the sponsor’s proposal, vacating a writ would require joint action by specified leaders (the sponsor described options such as the governor and a legislative presiding officer or the attorney general plus a legislative leader).

Opponents strongly opposed the bill. Friends of the Third Branch and other testimony called the proposal an unlawful intrusion on judicial authority and warned it would undermine the rule of law and lead to crises in separation of powers. Anne Sherwood said the constitutional provision the sponsor cited authorizes the court to issue writs, but does not allow the legislature to nullify a valid court order.

Other opponents said the bill would let elected officials refuse to process citizen-initiated ballot measures or other ministerial duties by vacating a mandamus; several initiative advocates and former drafters of initiative law warned the change would let officials thwart ballot measures by ignoring ministerial duties and then invoking the vacatur power.

Witnesses pointed to the practical consequences: initiative sponsors and voters could be blocked from circulating or certifying petitions if a mandamus directed clerks or officials to act and a political official chose to vacate the writ. Opponents urged a do-not-pass vote and asked committee members to weigh the long-term constitutional consequences of adding a legislative-executive override of judicial orders.

The sponsor offered to accept amendments that would narrow the mechanism (for example requiring more officials to act jointly) and described the proposal as a rare and narrow remedy rather than a general power.

No committee vote or other formal action on the bill appears in the transcript.

Why this matters: writs of mandamus are an extraordinary judicial tool to compel public officials to perform clear statutory duties; allowing political officials to vacate those writs would create a new check that opponents say risks undermining judicial enforcement of statutory and constitutional obligations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - Thursday, Mar 20, 2025 07:57 - 12:05","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 21 would allow specified executive and legislative leaders to jointly vacate a writ of mandamus ordering a public official to take ministerial actions, a proposal the sponsor called a narrow check on extreme court orders.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6118827,"Bill would expand statutory grounds for impeachment; judicial groups warn of vagueness",1974,5204000,7178000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e&start=5204&end=7178","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e/thumbnail_5204000.jpg","/articles/6118827/Montana/Bill-would-expand-statutory-grounds-for-impeachment-judicial-groups-warn-of-vagueness","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6118827-8633395d3d7fdd59582430bdade5e1bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148519&Signature=M4szHjS1RU-Q8s6gaO7JywYwVBsWrkRb4knStcmTrGkr-Ie2sHP6LBEX7ndA4zMK6Z445aoNQYsSIEjzs-r5~LcMmJmQyBvs~ylVywpxwOo752~gsPzdzNPR-gLCN8gQLETgVCMYYIPPW2avQPXWz1Y0~MFG38R~VaUPpVgCML5XfFG~f7GqKbwZCTe36gihHMiqjAxbfF7z3eS7rxGpnC3iuRETPMfWWzwi9JKlzpWhhKB5DkKdIVA20Sr22PDMfx3TDn-XXo2dWoEjYyrLNtCyQ8RfbTFisozj-kTz3dHXALFpcrsznmCssy-BfBSY2-jBmnhkrVjbYNeAZOlWJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 15, presented to the House Judiciary Committee by Senator Tom McIlvray, proposes to modernize the statutory grounds for impeachment and to enumerate specific grounds — including corruption, incompetence, negligence, willful neglect of duty, oppressive use of one’s office, and misconduct in office.

McIlvray opened by citing Article V of the Montana Constitution and said the bill would update language dating to 1889. He told the committee the change would enumerate conduct that the legislature may treat as sufficient for impeachment and stressed the constitutional safeguard already in place — removal by conviction requires a two-thirds vote of the relevant chamber.

Opponents from the State Bar, the Montana Trial Lawyers and the Judicial Standards community warned the bill inserts ambiguous and subjective standards into impeachment law. A representative for the State Bar argued the inclusion of negligence as an impeachment standard is especially problematic because negligence requires no intent and would invite politically motivated impeachment filings over judicial rulings or ordinary mistakes.

Bruce Spencer of the State Bar warned that mistakes and clerical errors — the kind of error a judge could correct with a nunc pro tunc order — should not be grounds for impeachment. Opponents said adding broadly phrased grounds such as “incompetence” or “oppressive use of one’s office” risks politicizing impeachment, deterring qualified judges from service, and opening protracted legal battles.

Sponsor testimony emphasized that enumerating misconduct in statute would provide clarity and a remedy for officials who seriously fail to perform duties, including examples such as corruption or a senile judge unable to carry out duties. McIlvray said the constitutional two-thirds requirement remains a high bar and that the bill is intended to provide modern, plain-language standards for the legislature to apply.

No votes or formal committee action on the bill are recorded in the transcript. The committee spent significant time on this bill; opponents urged defeat and proponents urged careful consideration and amendment if needed.

Why this matters: impeachment is the legislature’s ultimate constitutional remedy for serious official misconduct. Expanding or changing statutory grounds affects the balance between holding officials accountable and insulating judges and other officers from politically motivated removal attempts.","Senate Bill 15 would enumerate modern statutory grounds for impeachment — adding terms such as corruption, incompetence, negligence, willful neglect of duty, oppressive use of office and misconduct in office — and prompted opposition from the State Bar and trial-lawyer groups.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6118832,"Bill would shift original jurisdiction over ballot disputes to district courts; opponents warn of delay and burden",729,2231000,2960000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e&start=2231&end=2960","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e/thumbnail_2231000.jpg","/articles/6118832/Montana/Bill-would-shift-original-jurisdiction-over-ballot-disputes-to-district-courts-opponents-warn-of-delay-and-burden","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6118832-bab8272e72c479b5e96597710bfa3097/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148519&Signature=lE4dYOHSZme7GGjOVI5UCeG9cCNv2LTBNHo4v9UfCDtpKcv4t8vi25QU8jXqEofqV~ynaUgZqP-5km0u1WxNzI7~QYzxEV9pX3bBSPNIuq1Xs9zbX7boIzZVzFLTT7hNxj1Bdj3YhOS6PVAJpSpICpjPcBXFD3c4AcxOCs0G0Inh0qHhKIjzL6Xow69a~56TBBf7zrSpMl9XoP1nm~4ltYzyjPDkhRbovht8Ly55NEED7qEKewjbGRern3Uni9GrG5yrG6vKG9EzeYmAO-pB9WKAxbI9d6pkrfJ9B9qqchUWnN8jcFRsQGUn1ARGhMsa1PI-d9PdFPZ-JKqoQAc3NA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 13, presented to the House Judiciary Committee, would remove most of the Montana Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over matters such as ballot-statement challenges and instead route those matters to district court for fact-finding before appellate review.

Sponsor testimony framed the change as a rule-of-process fix. The sponsor told the committee the bill was intended to ensure fact-finding occurs before the Supreme Court considers ballot disputes, saying the current route can leave the high court “shooting from the hip” because it lacks a factual record.

Opponents said the existing process already provides for district-court fact-finding when needed and warned the bill would create unnecessary delay, expense and duplication. Al Smith of the Montana Trial Lawyers said the current statute already allows the Supreme Court to refer matters to district court when factual records are needed, citing a provision that enables fact-finding by agreement of the parties.

Jonathan Mottle and other opponents representing initiative advocates argued that the pre-signature review process for ballot measures is time-sensitive. Mottle said sending more cases through district court increases the risk that initiatives will miss signature-gathering and ballot deadlines.

Mark Mackin, who testified he had been involved with the historical statutory change in the late 1970s or early 1980s, described the statute’s original purpose: speed and fewer duplicative hearings. He said the legislature adopted the Supreme Court route to give administrators faster, less costly answers and warned that reversing that decision risks litigation and diluting the people’s initiative power.

Witnesses also raised separation-of-powers concerns. Opponents argued that repealing the statute that currently grants the Supreme Court certain writs could be read as limiting the court’s enforcement tools and spur constitutional litigation.

Sponsor closing remarks repeated that the bill’s intent is to preserve judicial legitimacy and ensure fact-finding when factual issues exist; he told the committee the process would remain accelerated when necessary to protect ballot timelines. No committee vote or final action on Senate Bill 13 is recorded in the transcript.

Why this matters: The bill affects how Montana resolves pre-ballot challenges to ballot language and could change the timing and cost of initiative work. Proponents say it boosts factual rigor; opponents say it risks delay that impairs the initiative process and may trigger separation-of-powers litigation.","Senate Bill 13 would move most original jurisdiction for ballot-statement and related challenges away from the Montana Supreme Court and toward district courts for fact-finding before appellate review.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6118837,"Lawmakers consider bill to give donors a path to enforce written endowment agreements",1949,281000,2230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e&start=281&end=2230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e/thumbnail_281000.jpg","/articles/6118837/Montana/Lawmakers-consider-bill-to-give-donors-a-path-to-enforce-written-endowment-agreements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6118837-8f3058a1c6f3e6772f3ccd266b2998a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148519&Signature=buhCDWOXb6hCYE4WfklJ4cEMQfEGCkAQGp3JHb66FTOl0iWb~5FCEHE1v9OAFqihPyYZn2lpulvMc56PSTm-Iy-z7vF7LapUkwGW-R6QOUNGuznpLo1vTgdvxi1BMQW0Vxj2TAmrf86u4J4PA2bZ9iz3Tbx1qVo9FSrIZBFOPi39LqQgoGRvcI3jJNTA-Hk-JZxX4dlNo~S-HpRNrf2MhlZRnx6gzx4xALbN3agFBbqJpgkaBN8WvTBSQuJoUFbnBORRh7eS-x8HL81CTgTzAPza-yy6uJfYb3CgiXSiORlgNIhiIi8u3f4MvuU8a~Z9kZKFiYGPXRXhUfBr97bElw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senators and witnesses told the House Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 134, the Safeguarding Endowment Gifts Act, would create a legal pathway for donors to enforce written endowment agreements if a charity violates donor-imposed restrictions.

Senator Greg Hertz, sponsor of the bill, told the committee, “This is an act creating the Safeguarding Endowment Gifts Act.” Hertz said Montana currently lacks clear legal protections when a donor’s intent for an endowment is ignored and that the bill would let courts order remedies that keep funds devoted to their intended charitable purpose.

Megan Schmidt, senior director of government affairs for Philanthropy Roundtable, testified in support and described the change as a way to treat restricted gifts as enforceable agreements. “This bill gives donors the ability to file a complaint with the court of a violation being found in a written endowment agreement,” Schmidt said, adding that courts could order remedies consistent with the charity’s purpose but not return donated funds to donors.

Schmidt and other proponents told the committee the bill would not allow donors to reclaim gifts or seek damages. She said the legislation provides clarity for courts and donors by treating a written restricted gift more like a contract than an unrestricted donation.

Committee members pressed proponents on two recurring issues: the bill’s retroactive date and the scope of remedies. Representative questions focused on why the bill reaches back to 1975 and how courts would implement remedies. Schmidt told the committee that the retroactivity date was negotiated with stakeholders and argued it was meant to cover large endowments made years earlier when problems may only surface long after the donation.

Proponents also described the remedial toolbox the bill would allow. Schmidt said courts could order an accounting, interpret a gift agreement, or transfer the remainder of an endowment to a charity with a similar mission; the bill, she said, explicitly removes the donor’s ability to get a refund of the gift.

Opposition testimony was limited at this hearing; several representatives asked for more examples and legal detail. Committee members asked proponents to provide case studies and statutory cross-references so the committee could evaluate how similar laws have operated elsewhere.

The hearing closed after sponsors and proponents answered questions. No committee action or vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript.

Why this matters: the proposal would change how restricted gifts are treated in Montana courts, potentially increasing donors’ leverage to enforce written agreements while limiting charities’ exposure to being forced to return funds. That balance was central to the committee’s questions and the proponents’ answers.","At a House Judiciary Committee hearing, sponsors and witnesses debated Senate Bill 134, which would let private donors sue to enforce written endowment agreements and limit remedies to court-ordered compliance or transfer of funds to like-purpose charities while barring return of donated funds.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6118822,"Representative introduces constitutional amendment to repeal Montana’s same-sex marriage ban; supporters urge vote of the people",2948,7524000,10472000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e&start=7524&end=10472","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2715927-38361dda5cf72235595a94b8a592558e/thumbnail_7524000.jpg","/articles/6118822/Montana/Representative-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-repeal-Montanas-same-sex-marriage-ban-supporters-urge-vote-of-the-people","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6118822-6d971c96b3a06b96199584a06193d2f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148519&Signature=LO79Zgg5vDiTyP8Dt3~1pZEfjez96CgCqCJt4DmF9uAqSTa1bu9eYJSGiPqdesSESnnuiov6~B6AHH70nFxL409UXcQ-nWgItuTsKD1eeBfMHUqs2swVIyd86Eu9zMZRJs37Mu1mxo~SLSK0oUh~bxtjeLHxJcaZHajQHaiczfCKWf0zic50XtKtXj7j-ZI9YLpa9ln4NddR4kTJk-tNyihwKp401cfxb~koSH8HXPCO2NEo9pUZTopCpOpNo4aFjFn~dCahRMrbP~KukOH7aF1Xkjx7gzls04S10Z1ylxPRGnkZBd4fAMh0hVs0kHOy1zKz-0qdnD2Sq8AMZMqCaw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Zoey Zephyr opened a House Judiciary Committee hearing on House Bill 798, a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and send the question to Montana voters.

Zephyr framed the amendment as a long-overdue cleanup of the constitution and a recognition of marriages that federal and state courts already treat as lawful. “It is the university itself and the surrounding areas,” Zephyr said by way of introducing herself; she recounted her own recent marriage and said the ban is “a relic of a crueler time.”

The hearing drew extensive proponent testimony. Witnesses described family and legal harms encountered when state law did not recognize same-sex marriages, and proponents emphasized equality, dignity and legal protections such as hospital visitation, parental recognition and estate rights. Several said the change is largely symbolic code cleanup because federal law and court rulings have already established marriage equality in practice; proponents asked the legislature to let Montana voters decide on a clean state constitutional text.

Organizations and individuals testifying in favor included the ACLU of Montana, the Montana Gender Alliance, BridgerCare and many individual Montanans who described family experiences. Sam Momeyer said, “It is far past time for our laws to reflect that reality,” and the ACLU representative argued that cleaning state law prevents confusion and avoids future legal conflict.

Opponents included representatives of the Montana Family Foundation, who argued the state should preserve a definition of marriage that recognizes a husband and wife and cited social science they said shows different outcomes for children raised in same-sex households. Opponents framed the question as protecting what they called complementary parental roles.

Representative Zephyr closed by urging colleagues to send the measure to voters. No committee vote or further action appears in the transcript; the hearing record shows extensive public testimony on both sides.

Why this matters: Repealing a constitutional ban would put the question of formal constitutional language to Montana voters and remove anachronistic text from the state charter; proponents argued it aligns the constitution with current law and practice while opponents framed the change as an attack on traditional marriage.","Representative Zoey Zephyr introduced House Bill 798, a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Dozens of proponents testified about family stability and legal protections; opponents urged preservation of traditional marriage and cited studies they said show different child outcomes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsor seeks power to vacate writs of mandamus; legal groups warn of separation-of-powers risk

Bill would expand statutory grounds for impeachment; judicial groups warn of vagueness

Bill would shift original jurisdiction over ballot disputes to district courts; opponents warn of delay and burden

Lawmakers consider bill to give donors a path to enforce written endowment agreements

Representative introduces constitutional amendment to repeal Montana’s same-sex marriage ban; supporters urge vote of the people