Senate considers bills to reshape Supreme Court administration in Montana
The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the idea of appointing the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court as a nonpartisan position, but during the same meeting supported changing another position, the court's chief administrator, to guard against political influence.
The committee held hearings and took executive action on both bills at its Feb. 25 meeting, as the Legislature heads toward the transmittal deadline to send legislation to the opposite chamber.
Senate Bill 342, introduced by Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, would alter how the Supreme Court administrator is appointed.
Fuller said SB 342 would improve accountability and transparency in the court system by having the Chief Justice appoint the court administrator, as opposed to the entire seven-justice bench.
Fuller cited a lawsuit stemming from the 2021 session that involved then-court administrator Beth McLaughlin and a legislative subpoena.
'That court administrator had some important political influence and incidents, and this is designed to eliminate that,' Fuller said.
Greenwood testified in favor of the legislation, noting that a similar bill was introduced last session that would move appointment authority from the justices to the Clerk, but that he found this to be a better alternative by keeping control of the administrator within the court.
He added that because a single justice is up for election every eight years, having the administrator answer to the Chief Justice makes it more feasible for changes to be made in the position if necessary.
Fuller said that he understood the Chief Justice, as the 'big kahuna of the Supreme Court,' takes care of many of the administrative duties of the court, and it made sense to group the positions together.
The GOP-led judiciary committee passed the bill along party lines with all Democrats in opposition.
The committee also took executive action on Senate Bill 332, tabling the bill brought by Sen. Willis Curdy, D-Missoula, which proposed changing the role of Clerk of the Supreme Court into an appointed position, rather than its current partisan elected position.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court controls the court's dockets and filings, manages the appellate process, is the custodian of all official court records for the public, issues subpoenas, writs and certificates, and is responsible for licensing the state's attorneys.
While the position has been an elected position for decades, Curdy told the judiciary committee, given the increasingly political rhetoric around the judicial system, he believes a better model would be to remove the partisanship of the position.
'This bill dovetails with the Chief Justice's point of view that all those working within the court should reflect that politics has no place within the functioning of the court,' Curdy said, referencing Chief Justice Cory Swanson's State of the Judiciary speech to the Legislature last week.
In his address, Swanson stated that the judiciary 'should remain non-partisan, despite the almost irresistible pull of partisan spending and messaging in these highly contested campaigns.'
However, Swanson made no mention of specific roles within the judiciary, which Bowen Greenwood, current Clerk of the Supreme Court, mentioned while testifying in opposition to the bill.
Greenwood, a Republican, said that in his more than six years serving in the role, he hasn't had a single complaint about a filing or document being treated differently because of the partisanship, economic status, or physical appearance of a filer.
'So nothing's wrong. Why would we want to fix it if nothing's wrong?' Greenwood said.
In addition, Greenwood said that having Montanans elect the clerk gave a measure of accountability over the Supreme Court — whereas if the position answered to the justices, it would remove some oversight.
'The clerk's office is responsible for making sure that the rules have been followed before a document goes to the Montana Supreme Court. But sometimes in the past, the Montana Supreme Court has chosen to operate outside its own rules,' Greenwood said. 'When that happens, the office responsible for following those rules really matters.'
'I work for the people in Montana, not for the court,' Greenwood added.
Patrick Yawakie, representing the Blackfeet Tribe, the Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, was the lone proponent for the legislation, arguing that keeping the court as nonpartisan as possible was the best path forward.
He pointed to statements made by Greenwood during his 2024 campaign, including that 'Republicans must observe every advantage we can get… I'm the only Republican in the court. We cannot risk losing gains we've made,' to show that the position had become overtly politicized.
The committee took immediate executive action on the bill, voting to table it in committee in a 5-3 party line vote.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Cornyn asks DOJ to probe groups tied to O'Rourke, others in Texas fight
Sen. John Cornyn (D-Texas) is asking the Justice Department (DOJ) to investigate groups —including former Rep. Beto O'Rourke's (D) Powered by People — that have allegedly helped fund Texas Democrats who fled the state to stall a GOP mid-decade redistricting plan. 'I write to encourage the Department of Justice to open an investigation into potential violations of federal law committed by the Political Action Committees and special interest groups providing funding and assistance to members of the Texas House of Representatives who absconded from the state and violated their duties to the citizens of Texas,' Cornyn wrote in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'I write today to encourage an investigation of the entities funding this charade. News reports make clear that PACs tied to Beto O'Rourke and megadonors such as George Soros are supporting the legislators, along with other campaign entities,' he continued. 'These outside groups appear to be acting in violation of federal public corruption and election laws.' More than 50 Texas state legislators left the Lone Star State earlier this month to break quorum, depriving the state House of the numbers it needs to move forward with a redistricting plan backed by President Trump. The proposal, which passed through the state Senate on Tuesday, would net Republicans five additional House seats and has triggered redistricting talks in other states on both sides of the aisle ahead of the 2026 midterms. Cornyn in his letter called out O'Rourke, alleging that his political group funded 'luxurious private jets' for the quorum-breaking lawmakers, along with food, lodging and logistical support from other groups. The latest move from the senator follows his recent call for the FBI to help track down quorum-breakers, comes as he seeks to fend off a conservative primary challenge from Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) in next year's election. Recent polling has shown Cornyn trailing Paxton, in some cases by double digits, though his team is projecting optimism that they'll be able to fend off the challenge. Paxton has also swung at O'Rourke and his group, which he's claimed engaged in unlawful fundraising activity to help the Democratic state lawmakers. He was granted a temporary restraining order last week, and is now seeking O'Rourke's arrest as he alleges that the order was violated. Meanwhile, Texas Democrats are trying to wait out the ongoing 30-day special session as their absence puts a pause on advancing the new Congressional map, but Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has said he planned to call another immediately afterward. The venture comes with hefty expenses. In addition to the costs of living away from their homes in Texas, the participating Democrats each face $500-a-day fines, along with the threat of arrest and removal from their seats. California's Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has pledged to redraw the Golden State's congressional maps in a move that could counter Texas's gains with five additional Democratic House seats, depending on whether Republicans move forward with redistricting.


Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
More Americans than ever don't drink alcohol, poll finds. What's behind shift?
The share of Americans who drink alcohol has fallen to a record low, according to a new Gallup poll. At the same time, a record-high share of Americans believe consuming alcohol, even in moderation, is unhealthy. The results come from Gallup's Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 7-21 with 1,002 U.S. adults. In the survey, 54% of respondents said they sometimes drink wine, beer or liquor, marking the lowest such figure since 1939, the first year Gallup asked Americans about their drinking habits. It continues a recent trend of declining alcohol consumption, with the share of drinkers standing at 58% in 2024, 62% in 2023 and 67% in 2022. In contrast, for most of the past eight decades, this figure has remained above 60%. It reached a high of 71% in 1976. When the latest results were broken down by demographic groups, some notable differences emerged. Men were more likely than women to report drinking — 57% vs. 51% — and white respondents were more prone to drink than respondents of color — 56% vs. 52%. Similarly, there were slight generational differences. Among adults 55 and older, 56% reported drinking alcohol, while 50% of 18- to 34-year-olds said the same. Democrats were also significantly more likely to consume alcohol than Republicans — 61% vs. 46%. This is a relatively new phenomenon, as the share of GOP respondents who drink fell 19 points since 2023, while the share of drinking Democrats only fell by 3 points. For the first time, a majority of respondents, 53%, now say drinking in moderation — defined as up to two drinks per day — is bad for health. Meanwhile, 37% said it makes no difference, and 6% said it is good for health. The findings reflect a continuing trend of more Americans viewing drinking as unhealthy. In 2024, 45% said alcohol is bad for health, up from 39% in 2023 and 28% in 2018. Young Americans were also significantly more likely than their older counterparts to view moderate drinking as detrimental. In the survey, which has a margin of error of 4 percentage points, 66% of 18- to 34-year-olds said moderate drinking is bad for health. Meanwhile, 48% of those 55 and older said the same. Similarly, women were more likely than men to say limited drinking is unhealthy — 60% vs. 47%. And Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say the same — 58% vs. 44%. The results come as emerging medical guidance indicates that drinking alcohol — even in moderate amounts — indeed poses health risks. The U.S. government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting drinking to one or two servings per day. But, this advice is expected to be removed and replaced with a more general warning, according to a June report from Reuters, which notes that limited alcohol consumption has been linked to higher risks of certain types of cancer. 'The continuation of these trends may hinge on whether recent pronouncements about drinking's risks are the final word on the subject, similar to how the U.S. surgeon general's warnings about tobacco in the 1960s marked the start of a long-term decline in smoking,' Gallup concluded.

Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
WSJ Opinion: The Gerrymandering Wars Heat Up
A battle of restricting in Texas has created a national firestorm, with Lone Star State Democrats fleeing to other states, and governors from California to New York getting in on the fight. But what is gerrymandering, how did it start, and what does it mean for Donald Trump's second term?