Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Specialty Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee deadlocks on specialty courts study; SJ 39 tabled after 9-9 tie
Summary
The committee heard testimony that specialty courts could relieve district court caseloads, but a motion to advance SJ 39 failed in a 9–9 tie; members later moved to table the resolution.
Tom McIlvery opened on Senate Joint Resolution 39, describing a requested interim study into specialty courts to evaluate jurisdiction, caseloads, jury procedures and whether specialized tribunals could relieve pressure on Montana district courts.
McIlvery told the committee there are no separate constitutional or government-claims courts in Montana and said many constitutional and administrative claims currently wait behind criminal dockets in district courts. Committee members discussed whether existing district-court practices already provide internal specialization; Rep. Staffman said some districts assign judges informally to particular areas (for example family law) while McIlvery said specialization has been resisted in some districts.
Members asked whether a specialty court could include nonlawyer citizens; McIlvery replied no, noting Montana’s constitution requires a judge to be a lawyer. After discussion the committee moved SJ 39 do pass, but a roll-call vote resulted in a 9–9 tie and the motion failed. The committee then voted to move SJ 39 to the table for further consideration; the minutes record proxies and the motion to table was adopted.
