Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects effort to remove funding for Montana inmates housed out-of-state
Summary
An amendment to strip funding for contracts that house state prisoners in private out-of-state facilities failed after lawmakers debated capacity, civil-rights concerns and local jail overcrowding.
Lede: A House amendment to remove roughly $11.8 million per year intended to pay for Montana inmates housed in out-of-state contract beds failed on April 1, as House members debated whether the state had short-term alternatives.
Nut graf: The amendment, offered during debate on the biennial budget (HB2), would have struck funding used to pay for contracted beds in private facilities in states such as Arizona and Mississippi. Supporters called the contracts costly and risky to oversight and inmate protections; opponents said the state has an immediate capacity crisis in its prisons and county jails and no short-term place to house sentenced inmates.
Body: Rep. Ryan Howell moved the floor amendment, saying the funding "removes 11,800,000 in fiscal year 26 and 12,100,000 in fiscal year 27" and arguing that the contracts move Montanans far from families and diminish state oversight. Howell said the appropriations would instead be better invested in local treatment, community corrections and other alternatives that keep people close to home.
Opponents said the contracts were a temporary, unavoidable measure while the state addresses immediate capacity. Representative Jay Fitzpatrick said the state did not send inmates out of state "because we decided to help fatten the bottom line of a private correctional company. We sent the folks out of state because the correctional system in this state is stuffed to the gills," and warned that revoking funding would leave counties without a place to hold sentenced inmates.
Other speakers highlighted concerns about private facilities' track records. Representative Howell and others cited civil-rights and oversight gaps when defendants are housed hundreds of miles away. Supporters of the amendment urged more state-funded community alternatives while opponents pointed to ongoing construction and expanding in-state capacity as a longer-term solution.
Vote: The amendment failed. The clerk recorded 4 yes and 59 no on the amendment when it came to a vote in committee/committee of the whole; later the motion failed on the floor. The transcript records the committee-level tally on the amendment as 4-59 and later a vote on related measures that kept the contract funding in the budget.
Ending: Lawmakers on both sides agreed the capacity problem must be addressed. The debate left withstanding tensions between short-term solutions to immediate overcrowding and longer-term reforms to reduce reliance on out-of-state contract beds.
