Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Appointments DEI topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel hears contentious testimony on HB 215 to remove race/gender balancing for state boards
Summary
Representative Caleb Hinkle sponsored HB 215 to repeal statutory language requiring gender and proportional minority representation on state boards; proponents called the statute unconstitutional and impractical, while members questioned effects on tribal representation and reporting.
House Bill 215, presented to the House Judiciary Committee as a code-cleaning measure, would remove statutory requirements that state boards take positive action to attain gender balance and proportional representation by minorities. Sponsor Representative Caleb Hinkle said the language is outdated and potentially discriminatory.
Proponents included Patrick Webb of the Montana Family Foundation, James Manley of the Pacific Legal Foundation, doctors and other witnesses who argued the statute forces consideration of race and gender rather than merit. Manley said the Pacific Legal Foundation is prosecuting a related case against the state (identified in testimony as Do No Harm v. Gianforte, federal district court case, citation to be provided).
Committee members mounted sustained questioning about likely consequences. Representative Staffman, Representative Kelly, Representative Judd Hinkle and others asked whether repeal would prevent tribal representation on boards (witnesses and the sponsor repeatedly said it would not) and whether removing reporting requirements would hide important data on board composition (witnesses said certain reporting to the Secretary of State would remain). Members also pressed proponents for evidence of specific instances where diversity requirements produced unqualified appointees; proponents acknowledged they would follow up with documentation.
Medical witnesses who favored the bill described professional harms from ‘‘DEI’’ policies and urged appointments be made on merit. Other members emphasized the value of assured tribal or Native representation on boards that serve tribal interests; sponsor and witnesses said tribal appointments could still be made without the statutory language but disagreed on whether the statute itself is lawful or practical.
The committee closed the hearing on HB 215 and discussed scheduling for future executive action on other bills.
