Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Proposal to allow citizen-initiated grand juries fails after concerns over mandatory prosecution and misuse
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 4-60, which would have amended the state constitution to permit citizens in a county to petition to impanel a grand jury, failed on second reading after debate over mandatory prosecutorial duties, county costs and potential misuse of citizen grand juries.
Helena — The Montana House on March 25 rejected House Bill 4-60, a proposed constitutional amendment that would let county residents petition to impanel a citizen grand jury. The floor vote on second reading was 40 in favor and 60 opposed.
What lawmakers debated: The bill’s sponsor, Representative Millett, described the proposal as allowing ordinary citizens to convene a grand jury by petition as a check on government and to investigate allegations including public corruption. Millett described changes in the posted amendment after committee negotiations, including raising the petition threshold in some counties and striking provisions that would have allowed grand juries to retain private prosecutors at county expense.
Concerns raised on the floor: Opponents, including Representative Staffan and others, argued the proposal risked misuse for political vendettas, could unfairly target public officials, and would effectively compel county attorneys or the attorney general to prosecute indictments produced by citizen grand juries. Representative Staffan cited historical examples and county-attorney opposition that called the bill a “forced prosecution.” He warned small signature thresholds in some counties would make the mechanism easy to trigger.
Sponsor response: Millett said he had amended the measure to address many concerns — removing the requirement to pay private prosecutors with county funds and indicating willingness to adjust mandatory language such as “shall” — but supporters and opponents remained divided on whether the changes were adequate.
Vote and outcome: The clerk recorded 40 ayes and 60 noes; HB 4-60 failed second reading and will not advance in its present form.
Context: Millett and others argued the change would restore a citizen oversight tool they said existed in the past but was limited by judicial discretion; opponents warned of the practical and constitutional consequences of allowing groups to summon grand juries and potentially compel prosecutions.
What’s next: The failure on second reading means the measure will not proceed this session in its current form. Millett indicated willingness to continue negotiations on amendments in the future, but opponents said the concept itself is too problematic.
