Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on HB 618: sponsor seeks to bar certain DEI programs, opponents warn of wide collateral impact
Summary
Supporters say HB 618 limits divisive DEI trainings and contracts; state administration, procurement staff, disability advocates, libraries and legal counsel told the committee the bill’s definitions and enforcement scheme (via the attorney general) risk blocking services, complicating contracting with major vendors, and creating duplication with the Human Rights Bureau.
Representative Nikola opened House Bill 618 proposing a state ban on specified diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs as defined in the bill, and a prohibition on state contracts with vendors that run such programs. The sponsor explained the amendment he introduced relies on language drafted by the attorney general’s office and seeks to prohibit trainings and policies that, in the bill’s language, promote “divisive concepts” or use race or other protected characteristics as a basis for adverse treatment.
Supporters including the Coalition for Safety and Justice and advocacy groups called the trainings ineffective or divisive; Don Cape said military experience showed certain trainings harmed cohesion. Liesel Crocker (FGA Action) argued the bill would prevent taxpayer funding for programs she characterized as violating civil‑rights norms.
Opponents included Department of Administration Director Misty Ann Giles and chief legal counsel Don Harris, who warned the bill’s contracting provisions could bar widely used IT vendors and memberships in national professional associations. "We found 10 of our major IT vendors today that still have DEI," Giles told the committee, and Harris cataloged firms (Adobe, Amazon Web Services, IBM, Microsoft, Zoom and others) whose policies might trigger review. Procurement officials said complying with the statute as drafted could cost the state to replace existing contracts and would pose operational and fiscal challenges.
Disability advocates, including the National Federation of the Blind and Ability Montana, testified the bill could undermine programs that enable access, such as accessible newsline and vocational services, and that tribal and historical programming could be caught up by overly broad language. Quinlan O'Connor, chief legal counsel at the Department of Labor, warned the bill would duplicate enforcement, requiring the attorney general’s office to create new investigation and sign‑off processes that could overlap with the Human Rights Bureau’s longstanding administrative scheme.
Committee members asked if the attorney general would staff enforcement and whether the bill’s exemptions would protect federally required trainings or tribal sovereignty; the sponsor said the amendment includes exemptions for programs required to comply with federal law, tribal nations and certain educational content and that the attorney general had volunteered to administer waivers and enforcement. Several committee members and witnesses urged tightening the bill’s contracting language and clarifying how discrimination and discrimination lists would be determined in practice.
The bill attracted extensive oral testimony and many online commenters. The sponsor closed inviting further drafting work and asked the committee for a due pass after fixes; committee action on the bill was deferred for further review and amendment work.
