Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor's bid to bar recent political donors from being tie-breaking redistricting commissioner draws constitutional objections
Summary
House Bill 711 would prevent the Montana Supreme Court from selecting as the "fifth" tie-breaker on the independent redistricting commission anyone who made campaign contributions in the previous 10 years to major state or federal parties or offices. Legal and free-speech concerns were raised by witnesses.
A sponsor who identified himself as the representative for House District 33 told the Senate Judiciary Committee that House Bill 711 would bar the Supreme Court from naming as the commission's fifth member any person who made campaign contributions to major state or federal party or office candidates in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the change aims to ensure the fifth member is nonpartisan and free of political bias.
Joe Lampson, an experienced former commissioner who testified against the bill, told the committee that HB 711 "would violate article 5, section 14 by seeking to expand the legislature's role by limiting the selection of possible commissioners." Lampson cited court rulings and a constitutional provision he said confines the legislature's role in redistricting to appointing four commissioners and making final plan recommendations.
Lampson also raised First Amendment concerns, saying campaign contributions are a form of political speech and that barring contributors from being considered could create constitutional problems. He noted past unanimous Montana Supreme Court selections of commission chairs and said courts have previously interpreted the Constitution to limit the Legislature's involvement.
The sponsor argued the bill does not infringe free speech and said the change simply seeks a nonpartisan tie-breaker for fairness in the redistricting process.
Committee members asked for a copy of the legal review note cited during testimony; a member requested that staff print and distribute the review. No committee action was taken during the hearing.
Testimony represented two clear lines of argument: the sponsor framed the bill as an anti-partisanship reform; opponents said it would expand the legislature's role beyond constitutional text and risk First Amendment challenges.
