[{"_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",6621331,"mediaKeyId","2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c","parentId",2803058,"title","Votes at a glance: early roll calls and committee concurrences from March 27 Montana House session","audioSeconds",4298,"startMs",857000,"endMs",5155000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c&start=857&end=5155","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c/thumbnail_857000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6621331/Montana/Votes-at-a-glance-early-roll-calls-and-committee-concurrences-from-March-27-Montana-House-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621331-d98392807ae589478eb4d7b2694df7f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775379586&Signature=EONIdm~vSTJKwuyvP47uUyruW1gC7aL9QhIXOBT6xpjhfVyQkHfFbqDEVq4kz-3VA0m1e3yko-ks-gD2uNX6cibPlYlV5Elp58z68PDP05tdmdyTg7IxE8ic4~RrBi9ZcL0a2X1BjMn6P2ko7AZCNmhvtBjvYGX8yhoTgGKn5HCaqj5OXhq~ofrdAMJRV4K9JktVQpkB1XcoIxjvOAWdQw22ZVPagnkauUzGpOsksuM4cmWqCxO8oi6xowCAEdsbKEJPbSIGmKhqBZpvOkOEIHq5karUL-80TcuhmG-Dk9TGdCSwJPe12jrwvOeXmnkI~g1ggxL0GOeqno~JL34Enw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","The House recorded a number of roll-call results and committee concurrences during the March 27 session. Below are items from the session transcript with recorded outcomes and clerk tallies.

Early third-reading roll-call results (floor):
- House Bill 372 (license fees for upland game bird enhancement): Passed; clerk recorded 90 ayes, 9 nays.
- House Bill 5 (long-range building appropriations): Passed; clerk recorded 83 ayes, 16 nays.
- Senate Bill 456 (professions/dispensing drugs): Passed; clerk recorded 99 ayes, 0 nays.
- Senate Bill 5 (county tax appeal board compensation): Passed; clerk recorded 99 ayes, 0 nays.
- Senate Bill 184 (contested precinct committee ballot requirement): Passed; clerk recorded 97 ayes, 2 nays.
- Senate Bill 101 (laws related to squatting): Passed; clerk recorded 58 ayes, 41 nays.
- Senate Bill 137 (juror excusal for age 75+): Passed; clerk recorded 90 ayes, 9 nays.
- Senate Bill 109 (workers' compensation treating physician definition): Vote recorded but final tally not printed in excerpt.

Committee concurrences and second-reading results (selected items recorded later in the transcript):
- House Bill 3 29 (ammunition components tax exemptions): Reported passed (second reading) — 52 ayes, 48 nays.
- House Joint Resolution 19 (declare frontotemporal degeneration awareness week): Passed second reading — 76 ayes, 24 nays.
- House Joint Resolution 20 (request to federal government to increase border hours of service): Passed second reading — 98 ayes, 2 nays.
- A sequence of Senate bills and others were concurred in during the committee sequence; several recorded concurrences and tallies appear in the transcript (examples include Senate Bill 134, 190, 248, 249, 305, 166, 279, 279 and others as listed in the transcript).

Committee report adoption and adjournment:
- The Committee of the Whole report was adopted on a recorded vote (97 ayes, 1 nay) and the House adjourned to reconvene the next legislative day.

Notes and limitations: This roundup includes items for which the transcript contained explicit roll-call tallies. Some items were discussed but the excerpt does not include a complete final tally in the provided transcript; where tallies were not printed in the excerpt, the item is noted but no final number is supplied.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session - Mar 27, 2025 13:00 - 16:00","oneSentenceSummary","Several bills and concurrence motions were approved on recorded roll calls early in the March 27 session; this roundup lists items recorded on the transcript with vote tallies, including bills read three times and committee report concurrences.","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},6621337,"House concurs with shorter construction liability window, sponsors say move will ease housing costs",502,7496000,7998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c&start=7496&end=7998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c/thumbnail_7496000.jpg","/articles/6621337/Montana/House-concurs-with-shorter-construction-liability-window-sponsors-say-move-will-ease-housing-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621337-8acae86a96b393c614a4f6cf52085a0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775379586&Signature=b0xfiFGm3cKlHoX6MdNpd0GcvIW1-O6jRMvevm3ExFli3XyLauzZ6UQzDm6d9K9oIHXiHXFFnVS3OhwOC6qsBpE8LNOvvXA36sWu2V~ztfQLx~b7hJvH3S794kAlocicExo-tKH~ZVxSa639QIPygN48VJ1717-LgMlwPfUeN1V5csVQv4VC83cKOVyizfEo7OwdOyTjPYwoJ1B33agkoRVlEzCGqzMWYs2o5-zBnaXbbtqepzqpd44p-9JdG2hpYQbsV~ZnHL36euLl~BDTgt25Bowr78YkSDSZ8fTebbyj26GrhFAPRbTC4-hzX2E~YHyHZqwSz9LnmbtcwmF-PQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House concurred with Senate Bill 143, a measure that revises statutes of limitations and the statute of repose for certain construction and contract claims, after a lengthy debate over effects on builders, homeowners and housing affordability.

Rep. Sharp, who carried the bill, described it as a tort-reform measure aimed at aligning Montana with other states and easing costs for builders. “This is a tort reform bill intended to slightly revise a statute of limitations for Montana's builders and align those statutes more closely with those of other states,” Sharp said, noting that several neighboring states use a shorter window than Montana\u0000's existing 10-year repose.

Opponents warned the change could leave homeowners with latent construction defects—particularly those caused by expansive soils—without timely remedies. Rep. Griffith explained that in areas with expansive clays, foundation problems sometimes do not appear until years after construction and that shortening the legal window could shift costs to homeowners who later discover defects.

Supporters countered that many states operate with shorter windows and that reducing liability will lower insurance costs and regulatory burdens for builders, promoting more housing construction.

The clerk recorded 58 ayes and 42 nays; the House concurred in Senate Bill 143.

Why it matters: Supporters argued the change will help reduce costs for housing development by lowering long-tail liability exposures for builders, potentially encouraging more construction. Opponents pointed to geological conditions in parts of Montana where defects can emerge after the shortened window, creating significant remediation costs for homeowners.

Next steps: The House recorded concurrence; the text and effective dates would follow the usual enactment process.","The House concurred with Senate Bill 143, shortening certain construction-related statutes of limitation and repose; proponents said the change reduces insurance and liability burdens for builders, backers said it will help housing supply while opponents warned of impacts on homeowners with latent foundation defects.",{"_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},6621341,"House rejects motion to audit Office of Disciplinary Counsel after polarized debate over scope and authority",1099,5483000,6582000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c&start=5483&end=6582","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c/thumbnail_5483000.jpg","/articles/6621341/Montana/House-rejects-motion-to-audit-Office-of-Disciplinary-Counsel-after-polarized-debate-over-scope-and-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621341-72aadb4fd0a22e9ae4145456990e97a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775379586&Signature=WNiyU0w7RQ3WFibxZyho4cUQXRRkEOn38v6A3W4yi7lKtqtvpxOZpatus5GlsKN3bajBDIDFqKtfAXXX7Ips3Ehq4MMWAxaun8oaSfiU3tADnE15eXs4mXqUQ1oFBhIFTEcGGoHv1S8tjlbsvyP8pZRHs6TDbVV2oe22Y9QjawGT5nyKf-k5rJJ4eRbh-8FDp0ZY2Ur-KVK-Ckkc2HCk29UaoZ-Ct9JizXJ-k6LbBmHnf7ujq2dOayxGkKRSF6t2w77Irem6XuxznJlvJwh-GLhDfdia6ixn-fOtVmbLqPy8ROjUm4~hllF5b-3neL-lTxvKZtVZwdpU3zTYk-TgOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House voted down a motion to concur with Senate Bill 14, a bill that would have directed the legislative auditor to perform a one-time performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).

Representative Mallette, who carried the bill in the House, said the audit would provide “a thorough understanding of each funding source” for ODC and an analysis of budgets, costs and functions over the prior 10 years. He described the audit as an objective, nonpartisan review intended to promote public trust.

Opponents called the measure an unnecessary “fishing expedition.” Representative France said the ODC is independently funded by the State Bar and performs transparent annual reporting; he said the Supreme Court supervises attorney discipline and there are no state funds involved to justify a legislative audit. “This bill is not needed,” France said.

Other speakers raised concerns about confidentiality and precedent. Representative Deming and others warned that a performance audit would likely require auditors to review case-level materials, which could implicate confidential information about complaints that did not result in discipline. Representative Staffman said the legislative auditor told the committee he had never been asked to audit an entity that receives no public funds.

Supporters argued the legislative audit division is capable of handling confidentiality and that the bill would help lawyers who fund ODC understand how assessment dollars are used. Representative Sharp urged oversight of the judiciary and its related entities, arguing that an audit would either clear or uncover problems.

When the House voted on the motion to concur, the clerk recorded 43 ayes and 57 nays; Senate Bill 14 failed to be concurred in.

Why it matters: The vote touches on separation of powers, oversight of judicial regulatory entities, and whether state legislative audit authority should extend to privately funded organizations that are subject to Supreme Court supervision. Opponents warned of constitutional and confidentiality concerns; supporters argued for transparency and public trust.","A proposal requiring the legislative auditor to perform a one-time performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel failed in the House after members debated whether the audit was necessary and whether it set a precedent for auditing privately funded entities.",{"_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},6621346,"House advances amended ammunition components tax break after heated debate; bill reinstates 2015 exemptions with new sunset",1252,1974000,3226000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c&start=1974&end=3226","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c/thumbnail_1974000.jpg","/articles/6621346/Montana/House-advances-amended-ammunition-components-tax-break-after-heated-debate-bill-reinstates-2015-exemptions-with-new-sunset","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621346-c26ba890cae197e662d18fddab9b8dbb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775379586&Signature=FNCsOhQbR5Nfmx61hYrxttBbTIyFL3mH5yfQ7pYLzwq8ZM8MqCFoWWnbExiu6qe95E61kxaWDUZz2VjvVwbR67iYBVDf2nowMXdOjEYSq9cxht09-WnZ~c0gjN5Ht632DFsTUaIZy0apkM2~JF04W4Nhb3bu9MLNHiJLnEkL361BoTC1Og93zDGN32PTBc0m9Ta1-VnsEWGYPF~4Vi9WiqQYWEMdKfMr1PUesNCaAzJ68k12iOrw6ktItWn0ycQXn~WNvQy7eeWB91QyyepR6b8fwervHSDD5qQ8Tf56yS5d3K74bqRcTlPVFQ8QEdN4uq5OZwquCHiI6NS3NolQow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill to restore tax exemptions for manufacturers of ammunition components passed second reading in a House committee by a 52-48 vote after extended debate over fiscal impacts and special treatment for a single industry.

Representative Matt Byrne, the sponsor, said House Bill 3 29 reinstates the Montana Ammunition Availability Act that had expired Dec. 31, 2024. Byrne told members the bill was “both the national security and a second amendment bill” and said it contains sideboards requiring manufacturers to guarantee Montana access to primers and powder before filling external contracts. “This bill guarantees through its strict sideboards that ammunition components like powder and primers are available to Montana law enforcement, businesses, and citizens alike before it's offered for contracts ... outside the state,” Byrne said.

Opponents said the measure would create a broad tax exemption with uncertain fiscal consequences. Representative Jay Fitzpatrick said HB 3 29 “goes way too far” and described exemptions from property tax, personal and corporate income taxes as a “free ride for all of the major sources of taxation that we use to fund local government and state government in Montana.” Representative Carlin echoed fiscal concerns, noting the legislative fiscal note said the fiscal impact could not be estimated and that the bill effectively exempts a manufacturer from state taxes.

Supporters argued the exemption is a short-term incentive to attract large, capital-intensive manufacturers that create high-paying jobs in rural communities. Rep. Gene Nicolakakos and others said the bill includes a five-year sunset, giving the state an opportunity to reassess. Representative Cochran said Montana has empty manufacturing sites and urged lawmakers to ‘‘get some of these good paying jobs back to Montana.”

Questions during committee included whether the exemption applies to component production (primers and powder) rather than finished ammunition and whether there are minimum production thresholds. Byrne clarified the bill applies to components and not to finished ammunition and said the bill\u0000's sideboards require Montana supply be prioritized for in-state needs.

The committee recorded 52 ayes and 48 nays and reported the bill as passed second reading.

Why it matters: The bill would reestablish a targeted tax exemption intended to attract domestic production of ammunition components (primers, powder) to Montana. Supporters framed the measure as economic development and national-security policy; opponents saw it as a costly tax carve-out with unclear fiscal cost to the state and possible fiscal impacts on public services.

Next steps: The bill passed second reading in committee and was reported as passed; further floor action would follow under the House process.","Lawmakers voted 52-48 to advance a bill that restores tax exemptions for manufacturers of ammunition components, a measure supporters framed as a national-security and economic development step and opponents criticized as an open-ended tax carve-out.",{"_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},6621350,"House committee rejects bill to impose 2% tax on electricity production; sponsors say measure protects Montana legacy funds",811,1125000,1936000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c&start=1125&end=1936","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803058-dd46db42f439864f5f4044ec04df4e4c/thumbnail_1125000.jpg","/articles/6621350/Montana/House-committee-rejects-bill-to-impose-2-tax-on-electricity-production-sponsors-say-measure-protects-Montana-legacy-funds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621350-2dfe4bf644732a14c727231539a65c9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775379586&Signature=ACNhscaWA8UBU5C~V652lbg0ZyhVYUW-7NwYMhKH9cuIFjyZVmeQOogs4wX3iLh5VLcGr6oCJnnmw3bI8Tt91pwMfbf2l~phPlvUdZs0pOv8FTseJ5W80mI0QJPc2lQWxc8YyfRJR5SA1Lb99N~53auCsNZEB0I9pAAY8GtNhlqt~CLQTsljW0mAuffPotGNqAWK96pgu4Lo~7hu2IaL-Cc5dmiTYTp4euDqZuXvEE9-3GrFaAgt9jtut4PoVKl0cRIm701K9WcG6KK1zUoqbbargOoQZbtsVpbRbNNWgFiGG6LCXvP4H0GnyRmtAYMQp5YoZB1Wf-EmLGCat8BLgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposal to create a new 2% tax on electricity production in Montana while leaving coal production exempt failed in a House committee on a 50-50 tie vote.

Rep. Brad Perry, the bill sponsor, told the committee the tax was intended to preserve “legacy dollars” that currently flow from the coal severance tax to universities, libraries, conservation districts and local governments. “When coal goes away, we lose 15%,” Perry said. “I\u0000'm asking to replace that with 2% ... to create dollars for our people in the future.”

Supporters framed the measure as a way to capture some value from wind and solar generation that, they said, is exported out of state. Rep. Aaron Kametz argued renewable projects currently receive large tax breaks and that renewable producers should “pay their fair share.”

Opponents said the bill would raise electricity prices for Montana ratepayers and slow renewable development. Rep. David Kohnauer said the bill “in its current form is increase prices for Montana ratepayers” and cited testimony in tax committee that the bill had no proponents and many opponents.

Rep. Thain also objected to treating coal differently, pointing to the bill text that imposes the 2% tax on all producers “except electrical generation from coal or coal-fired steam turbines.”

After debate, the committee voted on the motion from Rep. Perry that the committee recommend passage. The clerk recorded 50 ayes and 50 nays; the motion failed and the bill did not advance.

Why it matters: The measure sought to replace some of the fiscal role that coal severance payments have long played in state and local budgets as the state\u0000's energy mix changes. Supporters argued the change would create a modest, long-term revenue stream for communities; opponents said it would raise costs for households and hamper Montana\u0000's participation in renewable energy development.

What happened next: The committee recorded the tie and the bill failed to pass second reading in the committee. No subsequent floor action was recorded in the transcript.

Votes at a glance: The committee vote on House Bill 3 26 was 50-50; the motion recommending passage failed.

Meeting context: The item was considered during the Committee of the Whole for second reading. The exchange included extended policy arguments about energy transitions, tax fairness, and the distribution of legacy severance revenues.","A proposal to create a 2% tax on most electricity production while exempting coal failed on a 50-50 vote in a House committee, after hours of debate over impacts on ratepayers, legacy severance funding and renewable energy development.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: early roll calls and committee concurrences from March 27 Montana House session

House concurs with shorter construction liability window, sponsors say move will ease housing costs

House rejects motion to audit Office of Disciplinary Counsel after polarized debate over scope and authority

House advances amended ammunition components tax break after heated debate; bill reinstates 2015 exemptions with new sunset

House committee rejects bill to impose 2% tax on electricity production; sponsors say measure protects Montana legacy funds