Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana justices, attorneys warn cutting Supreme Court from seven to five would slow decisions and risk backlogs
Summary
Chief Justice Corey Swanson and numerous legal groups told the House Judiciary Committee HB322 would create delays and backlogs if the Supreme Court is reduced from seven to five justices; sponsor argued the change would save about $1.2 million annually and is in line with other small states.
Representative Lucas Schubert introduced House Bill 3 22, proposing to reduce the Montana Supreme Court from seven justices to five. Schubert said the change would save about $1.2 million a year and argued several smaller states handle similar workloads with fewer justices. "This is a common sense bill to cut out bureaucracy," he told the committee.
Chief Justice Corey Swanson, appearing in opposition, described the court's current workload and the time required to draft opinions. He said justices are at capacity and warned that reducing the bench would impair the court's ability to research and write timely decisions. "When our opinions and our decisions are delayed, that costs the people that are waiting on those decisions time in prison," Swanson said, urging the committee to consider functionality and timing.
The Montana County Attorneys Association, the State Bar, defense trial lawyers, former justices, and other legal groups joined Chief Justice Swanson in opposition. Patricia Cotter, a former justice, warned the court would quickly accumulate a backlog of opinions and face operational strain. Bruce Spencer, speaking for the State Bar, and others raised a textual‑interpretation concern: the constitution authorizes the legislature to increase the number of justices but does not explicitly say it may reduce the number, a point some legislators flagged as a potential legal obstacle.
Committee members questioned the chief justice and other witnesses about caseload growth, whether a proposed chancery court would serve as an intermediate appellate venue, and how judicial staff and law clerks support opinion production. Swanson said even if a chancery court passes, its structure may not remove discretionary appeals to the Supreme Court, and that reducing the number of justices could impose lasting political consequences on the court's composition.
Representative Schubert closed by reiterating his cost‑saving argument and proposing an amendment to delay the effective removal of positions into 2030 to allow more consideration; he urged the committee to consider similar smaller states that function with five justices. The hearing closed with no immediate vote.
