Montana bill would set rules to select and oversee commissioners to an Article V convention

Sen. Tom McGilvray introduced Senate Bill 120, saying the measure "establishes a process to select commissioners to an article 5 convention" and to set administrative mechanics including an oath and recall authority for delegates. The committee heard multiple proponents and opponents before closing the hearing.

The bill would add statutory definitions and qualifications for commissioners, require selection in a joint session of the legislature, set a commissioning resolution that can limit delegates to topics authorized by the legislature, prescribe an oath, set compensation at the same rate as legislators, cap gifts at $200, and create an advisory oversight committee and recall processes. McGilvray told the panel the statute is intended to ensure Montana can "have representation" if an Article V convention is called.

Supporters said SB120 fills a procedural gap. Representative Shane Klakken, a proponent in the room, said the measure is a "preemptive bill" to ensure Montana has a process if and when a multistate application moves forward. Online proponents argued the bill clarifies selection, oversight and limits of authority: Dan McLean of Convention of States Action said the bill answers common questions about selection and control, while Doug Carey told senators, "Time to act now." Karen Hoghaug (online) listed institutional checks — including limits on scope, point-of-order oversight, state delegation voting, the 38-state ratification requirement, and judicial review — and said SB120 addresses the legislature's control over delegates.

Opponents raised questions about popular legitimacy and legal practicality. Caroline Canarios of the Northern Plains Resource Council said "commissioners should be elected by the people of Montana" rather than appointed in a joint legislative session and urged the committee to consider excluding legislators from serving. Daniel Keder (retired Air Force), appearing online, warned the bill may create a false sense of security because several procedural and constitutional questions about an Article V convention remain unsettled; he referenced a Congressional Research Service report cited during testimony.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on legal authority and procedure. Representative Deming asked McGilvray to respond to Keder's criticisms; McGilvray replied that an Article V convention is a states' mechanism that can bypass Congress for proposing amendments and cited Idaho v. Freeman (1981) and other court decisions in support of his view that Congress would not control delegate selection. In response to questions about delegation size, McGilvray said Section 4 requires an odd number but does not fix a specific number, noting it "could be 3, 5, 7." On whether a legislative decision on selection would remain relevant if many years passed or control of the legislature shifted, McGilvray said the statute is meant to prepare Montana so it "would be there in a heartbeat" when a call occurs, though he acknowledged no guarantees.

The committee did not take a final vote on SB120 at this hearing. The chair closed public testimony and said executive action on the bills discussed will be scheduled at a later meeting.

The committee record includes proponents from organized groups such as Convention of States Action and opponents including Northern Plains Resource Council; testimony highlighted both procedural technicalities (selection, oath, recall, compensation) and broader constitutional questions about an Article V convention's scope and control.