Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Specialty Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary backs study of specialty courts to ease district caseloads
Summary
Sen. Tom McGill asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to study specialty courts to relieve overloaded district judges; proponents and the State Bar urged study while noting the legislature may also need more district judges. The committee heard testimony but took no final vote on SJ39.
Sen. Tom McGill introduced Senate Joint Resolution 39 on behalf of Senate District 26, asking the Judiciary Committee to direct an interim study of specialty courts that could take complex constitutional, government-claims and business cases off district court dockets.
“District courts are quite clogged up,” McGill told the committee, citing judicial-survey estimates of unmet judge needs in several districts and arguing that specialty courts could provide expertise and speed for complex civil and constitutional matters.
A proponent speaking for the Montana Family Foundation said a specialty court could serve as a ‘‘pressure-release valve’’ for overburdened district judges and urged lawmakers to study organization, jurisdiction and selection methods. Mr. Spencer, appearing for the State Bar of Montana, agreed judges face constitutional priorities but said the single most pressing need remains more district court judges: “we need more district court judges,” he told senators.
The resolution lists study topics including how other states structure specialty courts, how panels and jury trials would function, geographic placement, and judge selection and pay. McGill told the committee the study should assess whether such courts would be overwhelmed or underused if created in Montana.
No formal action on SJ39 was taken during the hearing; the sponsor asked the committee to take the resolution up as an interim study so lawmakers can examine the model and return to policy questions later.
