Sponsor says venue change prevents judge‑shopping; opponents warn of access problems for rural and Native communities

Sen. John Fuller introduced Senate Bill 97, which would require that original‑jurisdiction challenges to recently enacted laws be filed in the judicial district where the bill’s primary sponsor resides. Fuller said the change is limited to "recently enacted" statutes and is intended to prevent "judge shopping," arguing sponsors craft legislation for the benefit of the whole state but that venue should follow the sponsor’s district for these narrow, time‑limited challenges.

Opponents including Al Smith (Montana Trial Lawyers Association), the ACLU (Henry Seaton), Western Native Voice (Dean Bearclaw), and citizen John Marshall testified in opposition, saying the change would make litigation less accessible for rural and Native communities, could force plaintiffs to travel great distances, and would fragment challenges that now can be consolidated in a logical county. Dean Bearclaw said the bill "would have serious consequences, particularly for Native American communities" by requiring travel and potentially placing cases before judges unfamiliar with the impacted communities. John Marshall said the bill would discourage citizen participation by increasing cost and travel burdens.

Committee questioning explored whether the bill prevents coordinated challenges (multiple sponsors leading to multiple venues), how the bill interacts with tribal or federal venues, and whether the change actually curtails forum shopping or merely shifts advantages to sponsors. The sponsor argued the bill merely changes court of original jurisdiction and that legal recourse remains available; opponents and multiple representatives raised concerns about access and accountability to locally elected judges. The hearing closed with no recorded committee vote.