Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Lands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Energy passes second Utah-related resolution after debate on legal limits, 8-6
Summary
House Joint Resolution 24 passed the committee 8-6 after members debated whether supporting Utah’s action concerns land transfer or merely seeks legal clarification. Some members cited legal precedent opposing transfer; proponents called the resolution a statement to get a constitutional question answered.
The committee took up House Joint Resolution 24 and heard extended discussion about the resolution’s scope and legal ties to prior precedent. Representative Griffith said she studied case law, named Clappy v. New Mexico (as referenced in committee), and questioned whether Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 allowed the type of remedy Utah seeks. "I don't think we can support Utah's request legally because I don't believe that it is a sound complaint that they have filed," Griffith said, though she ultimately supported moving the resolution forward to start conversation.
Other members stressed the resolution was not a land-transfer bill but an effort to ask the court to resolve a constitutional question. A sponsor framed it as "a small step" and "a statement by the state of Montana to say look we're gonna try to fix this problem we're gonna do our part." Representative Carter noted the number of public opponents recorded in committee materials and said that opposition should be respected.
The committee recorded a roll-call vote of 8 ayes and 6 noes; committee members sent HJR 24 to the House.
Why it matters: Like HJR 25, HJR 24 asks the state to endorse judicial consideration of questions about federal land jurisdiction. Members split on the legal merits; proponents said the resolution starts a conversation, opponents flagged legal and political concerns.
Votes at a glance: House Joint Resolution 24 — passed, 8-6; moves to the House.
