House Judiciary approves study resolution for DUI prevention and treatment

Representative Melody Cunningham, sponsor of House Joint Resolution 65, told the House Judiciary Committee that the measure would direct an interim study of driving‑under‑the‑influence (DUI) prevention and deterrence. "As we all know well, DUI is a huge issue in Montana," Cunningham said, and she noted the issue was last studied about a decade and a half ago.

The resolution, which Cunningham said has bipartisan support, asks lawmakers to examine prevention, deterrence and treatment approaches and to consider practices used in surrounding states while accounting for Montana's rural geography and limited public‑transportation options. "We may be able to learn by looking around particularly at our surrounding states," Cunningham said. She urged the committee for a "do pass" recommendation.

Rising Eaton, appearing on behalf of the ACLU of Montana, told the committee the group supports HJ65 and wants the study to lead to evidence‑based, culturally appropriate responses that include funding for upstream diversion and robust substance‑use disorder treatment. "We're hoping that this study results in policy that follows evidence based practices and implementing holistic, long term, and culturally appropriate solutions," Eaton said, and asked the committee for a "do pass." Brian Thompson, representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, also supported the resolution and urged lawmakers to take "a good hard look at DUI" and the state's penalties.

Committee members questioned whether the study's scope should include related issues such as distracted driving. Vice Chair France asked whether distracted driving could be folded into the review; Cunningham deferred to staff. Ms. Weisten (committee staff) told members that adding an amendment now could require engrossing and slow the bill's path to the House floor, and she suggested that the assigned interim committee could incorporate additional topics into its study process if the committee wanted broader review.

Members who spoke in executive action emphasized moving the study forward this session. Vice Chair Deming moved that HJ65 "do pass." Representative Sharp said he agreed with discussion about distracted driving but wanted to move the bill quickly. Representative Kelly reiterated support and cited recent road‑fatality numbers, saying the data underscored urgency: "we had 12 fatalities across our roads in Montana, 2 of which have been clearly attributed to DUI," Kelly said.

The committee took a voice vote. The transcript records proxies and clerk announcements indicating that Representative Howell and other members were recorded as voting "aye" by proxy; the committee chair then announced, "HJ65 has passed House Judiciary." The committee record does not include a roll‑call tally in the transcript provided.

What happens next: HJ65 will move forward according to legislative process if placed on the calendar; if enacted by the committee it will be assigned to an interim study group to examine the topics laid out in the resolution or be subject to any floor action required to advance the measure. The committee did not adopt an amendment to add distracted driving; staff told members that the interim committee could consider related topics during its study.