Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Orders Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates limits on executive orders but takes no action
Summary
A draft that would limit executive orders to six months and impose a rule‑style continuation process drew extensive objections from the governor’s office and legal counsel, who warned of constitutional and practical problems; the committee took no motion on the measure.
The committee heard a more prescriptive bill that would limit executive orders to six months (extendable once) and require a rule‑style public notice and comment process for continued executive orders.
Josh Anderson described the mechanics: a continued executive order beyond the time limit would require a public notice, 45‑day comment period and a process modeled on administrative rulemaking. The draft also said an executive order would not be effective against any person until filed with the Secretary of State and made publicly available.
Drew Perkins (chief of staff) and other governor’s office witnesses argued the approach risks constitutional overreach and practical problems during emergencies (fires, floods, propane delivery exceptions, Teton Pass closures). They noted executive orders fall into categories — inherent constitutional management directives and orders authorized by statute — and a blanket time limit and rulemaking requirement could be both impracticable and subject to legal challenge.
Public commenters urged statutory requirements for evidentiary justification and accessible challenge mechanisms for declarations of emergency. Committee members expressed interest in targeted statutory fixes for specific executive authorities but declined to proceed with the broad rule‑style constraints in the draft, taking no motion at the hearing’s close.
