Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Accountability Grand Jury topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would allow Montanans to impanel county grand juries by petition; critics warn of politicization
Summary
Representative Tom Millett introduced House Bill 4 60 to let citizens convene a county grand jury by petition rather than requiring a district judge’s order; supporters said the change restores a people’s check on government and would increase transparency and accountability, while sheriffs and county attorneys warned the proposal risks
Representative Tom Millett told the committee HB 4 60 would correct what he described as a constitutional defect that prevents citizens from empaneling a state grand jury by petition. Millett said the Montana constitution currently states a grand jury may be summoned “only at the discretion and order of the district judge,” and that the bill would add a petition pathway requiring a specified number of registered electors in a county to trigger impaneling.
Proponents argued the change would strengthen accountability and provide a remedy when local prosecutors or judges decline to pursue allegations. Dozens of public speakers — including former county officials, union representatives, citizens who described perceived failures of local prosecutors, and members of the Montana Citizens Council on Judicial Accountability — urged passage. Testimony repeatedly cited U.S. Supreme Court opinions (including United States v. Williams) and framed the grand jury as a people’s check on government power.
Opponents included the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, which submitted a written letter opposing the bill and warned that a voter‑driven grand jury process could be used by motivated minorities, special interests or political actors to force prosecutions. They also argued the petition thresholds in the draft (for example, about 350 electors for a county the size of Cascade in the sponsor’s table) were too low to protect against abuse. Representatives asked about remedies when a county attorney refuses to prosecute; witnesses noted the attorney general has supervisory authority and that statute provides mechanisms for referral, but opponents stressed the potential for conflict and ethical questions for prosecutors.
Sponsor Millett said petition thresholds were negotiable and defended the measure as restoring a constitutional, citizen‑centered mechanism of oversight. The committee received robust public testimony both for and against and took no vote at the conclusion of the hearing.
