The Montana Senate Rules Committee voted 12-6 to advance a joint resolution intended to clarify when one bill is considered an "identical" bill to another, a change committee members said responds to language in a recent state Supreme Court decision. During the same executive action the committee debated a new Senate rule on media floor access and expressed concern about a provision allowing individual members to note legal assessments without formal legal review.

Committee staff described the change as a response to Forward Montana v. Montana Legislature, a state Supreme Court decision that, staff said, found the Legislature had not followed its rules when language from a failed bill was inserted into another measure. "It was... the Forward Montana Supreme Court case," said Mr. Evertz, a legislative staff member, explaining the origin of the amendment labeled "sub 2."

The amendment (sub 2) would clarify that a bill is "identical" only when the Rules Committee designates it as such, rather than leaving the question open to judicial interpretation. Committee members debated the drafting: Senator Ellis asked why current Joint Rule 40-70, sub 1, uses the phrase "designed to accomplish the same purpose" while the new language uses the word "identical," calling the difference "queer" and asking whether the subsections should be harmonized. Mr. Roberts, a staff member, and other senators said sub 2 was added deliberately to emphasize a verbatim-identical standard after the court's decision.

Senator Baldwin pressed staff for legislative-history context and asked procedural questions about what happens if the full body does not accept a rules-committee designation. Staff reminded members that the Rules Committee makes a recommendation that either legislative chamber can confirm on the floor; committees alone cannot finally decide the matter.

The committee also debated section 1050, a provision addressing access to the chamber floor for members of the media. Senator Baldwin asked whether the rule would create objective criteria or a checklist for issuing media cards and expressed concern about who would determine a "legitimate" news outlet. Staff and members clarified that the section as discussed is new to the Senate Rules (not the joint rules). Senator Smith stated she had "pretty deep hesitation" about language allowing an individual legislator to indicate a legal assessment without formal review.

Senator Mandeville called the question. The committee conducted a roll-call vote and reported 12 yes and 6 no. The roll call responses recorded in the hearing transcript are: Yes — Vice Chair Mandeville; Senator Ellsworth; Senator Emmerich; Senator Esp (by proxy); Senator Galt; Senator Glimm; Senator Hertz; Senator Lenz; Senator McCain; Senator Noland; Senator Usher (by proxy); Chair McGilvray. No — Vice Chair Smith; Senator Boldman; Senator Ellis; Senator Flowers; Senator Harvey; Senator Morgeau. After the vote the clerk announced, "12 have voted yes. 6 have voted no," and later the hearing record states, "Committee SJ2 has passed committee," while the original motion on the record requested that "Senate Joint Resolution 1 do pass." The transcript includes both references; the record does not clarify which SJ number will move forward.

The transcript does not show a named member moving or seconding the motion on the record. The committee did not record any floor scheduling or next-step timeline for the resolution in the provided transcript.

Why it matters: Committee staff and several members framed the amendment as a procedural protection for the legislative process meant to limit judicial second-guessing of internal legislative rules. The media-access language drew First Amendment and transparency concerns from members who asked for objective criteria and for safeguards around unilateral legal assessments.

No formal amendments to the resolution were recorded during the executive action, and no additional directions to staff (such as drafting changes) appear in the transcript. The committee's final procedural step in the provided record was the roll-call vote that advanced the item.

Quotes in this story are taken from the committee hearing transcript. The transcript records both the motion as "Senate Joint Resolution 1 do pass" and a closing clerk's statement referencing SJ2; the committee record in the transcript does not reconcile those two identifiers. The transcript does not specify the next procedural action or calendar date for the resolution.