Committee hears bill to remove mandatory grounds from Montana Recall Act; sponsors, local officials sharply divided

Senator Jeremy Trevis of Great Falls told the Senate State Administration Committee he is sponsoring Senate Bill 130 to change the Montana Recall Act so that a statement of reasons or grounds for a recall would not be required for circulation of a recall petition and, if provided, voters rather than the judiciary would evaluate the sufficiency of the reasons.

"If a statement of reasons or grounds for recall is provided in a petition, the qualified electors shall determine the sufficiency of those statements, not the judiciary," the drafter clarified during the hearing; sponsor Trevis repeated that the bill's intent is to let voters, rather than courts, decide sufficiency when proponents choose to include a statement of reasons.

Supporters argued the measure would remove a procedural hurdle that has blocked citizen recall efforts. Darren Gaub, who described leading a citywide recall effort in Helena, said citizens had gathered signatures and prevailed administratively but were blocked after the city used taxpayer funds in court to oppose the petition. "The power in America is in the hands of the people," Gaub said, and he urged passage so citizen recalls would not be stopped by court challenges to petition language.

Opponents said removing required grounds or judicial review would broaden the permissible reasons for recall, reduce transparency and invite political weaponization. Patrick Yawake, representing the Blackfeet Tribe and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, warned the change would remove statutory designations such as "physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense" and argued that the bill "creates too broad a scope for reasons for removal." Russ Nelson, mayor of Belgrade and president of the League of Cities and Towns, said a recall election in his city would cost a minimum of about $25,000 and that frequent recalls would impose financial and operational burdens on local government.

Law-enforcement interests opposed the bill on stability grounds. Brian Thompson, representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, said sheriffs "do not want to be in a perpetual state of election" and noted that recall thresholds and scheduling in current law could make a sitting official subject to frequent recall efforts.

Several local elected officials and county commissioners — including Joette Woods of the Montana Association of Counties, Nadine Brown (mayor of Richey), Gordon Oelkers of Roosevelt County, Regina Plettenberg of the Montana Association of Clerk and Recorders, and Missoula County Commissioner Dave Strohmeier — testified in opposition, citing potential costs, administrative burden on special districts and the chilling effect on public service.

Sponsor Trevis and supporters emphasized existing hurdles in the recall code: a petition typically must reach a threshold equal to 15% of registered voters from the most recent presidential-election turnout (section references discussed during the hearing), and a successful petition still must win a majority in a recall election. Trevis said those rules keep the bar high and that removing the required-statement requirement would not make recalls easy. During closing remarks he reiterated, "It takes time and money ... you can always run again."

Committee counsel and the bill drafter, identified as Miss Harden, cited a Montana Supreme Court case, Sheehy v. Firda (Dec. 2, 1988), as background for the proposed language that would leave sufficiency to qualified electors rather than the judiciary; she said the case involved a petition thrown out by the court for allegations it found "patently false, misleading and based on misconception." Harden asked the committee to consider whether the proposed text reflected the committee's intent and said she would offer the clarification again during executive action.

The committee heard extensive testimony but did not vote on SB 130 during the hearing. Members were told executive action was scheduled for a later meeting, and the sponsor acknowledged the bill's potential to affect him personally because his district's turnout characteristics could make a recall threshold smaller than in other districts.