Bill to reduce number of Montana Supreme Court justices dies in House
Montana has seven justices serving on its Supreme Court, but freshman legislator Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, believes that is too large of a judicial bench for a small state. He introduced House Bill 322 to eliminate two associate judges from the court, saying it would save taxpayer money and create a more efficient court.
The majority of his fellow representatives, however, didn't agree with his arguments and voted overwhelmingly, 29-71, against his bill during the House's Saturday floor session.
Schubert told his fellow lawmakers that the state constitution originally provided for a chief justice and four associate justices — with a provision for the legislature to increase that number, which it did in 1979.
'If we pass this bill, we are going to be cutting two of the justices out of the state, and we're going to be saving $1.2 million annually,' Schubert said. 'There are better things we can spend our constituents' money on than these two justices and their staff.'
There are nearly 350 state Supreme Court justices serving across the country on courts ranging from five to nine justices in size. The most common supreme court size is seven justices, with 28 state Supreme Courts, followed by 17 states with five-judge courts, and seven courts with nine justices.
The bill to reduce Montanan's court was requested by Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Tom France, D-Missoula, said HB 322 was possibly the most 'arbitrary and capricious' bill he'd ever seen come to the House floor.
'I feel almost like the sponsor got up and while he was brushing his teeth said, 'Well, let's just cut the number of justices form seven down to five,'' France said. 'He didn't ask the bar, he didn't ask lawyers, he didn't ask judges, about whether or not the case load could be effectively managed with fewer judges. He just looked at some statistics from other states.'
During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 7, no proponents testified on behalf of the bill, but numerous individuals and organizations spoke against it, including the State Bar of Montana, the Montana Defense Trial Lawyers, the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, and the Montana County Attorneys Association.
Many spoke about the caseload before the court and the need to keep the court fully staffed to ensure expedient decisions delivered for Montanans.
Newly elected Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court Cory Swanson also spoke in opposition to the bill. He told the committee that he'd spent several hours the day before redrafting a single opinion for the court.
'I was taking a lot of time, and doing a lot of research, and I'm not done with it,' Swanson said. 'The question for this committee is, 'Do you want your Supreme Court justices to do that?' Because with seven justices right now, we're all at capacity in terms of the work, in terms of time commitment, in terms of research, writing, drafting, discussing cases in conference.'
He also pushed back against the idea that cutting justices would save money, pointing to an upcoming bill to create a new court that would be more expensive than current associate justices cost.
'You want your justices to spend the time and attention necessary to craft good opinions, to give clear interpretations of the law,' Swanson said. 'That's it, and I think if you go from seven to five, you're going to sacrifice that.'
While the House Judiciary Committee passed the bill 12-8, the House voted it down by huge margins on Saturday, with 71 representatives opposing it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. Advertisement The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' Advertisement The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: Illinois, Texas both need remap reform
Nearly a thousand miles and opposite sides of the political spectrum separate Illinois and Texas. Yet there's one thing Democrats in the Land of Lincoln and Republicans in the Lone Star State can agree on: Gerrymandering works. For political operatives, the crafting of partisan redistricting maps is the miracle elixir that cures party ills and keeps politicians entrenched for generations. Like in Illinois and Texas. Which is why dozens of Texas Democrats have fled Austin, the state capitol, and are glamping in Chicagoland. They do not want to be part of a legislative quorum, which would allow the state's Republicans to redistrict upward of five new bright-red congressional districts. On its face, it seems supremely unfair attempting to wipe out constitutional guarantees of 'one man, one vote,' which is core to our democratic institutions. Instead of redistricting, both Illinois and Texas need remap reform. Under the Texas two-step of Gov. Greg Abbott, he who bused Illinois thousands of asylum seekers in recent years, we are told will give the administration of President Donald Trump additional seats in the U.S. House — Texas currently has 35 — in order to push through any wacky proposals he can come up with. So far, there have been plenty that have squeaked through the House and Senate with the help of Trump-friendly lawmakers. Texas Democrats setting up their rump headquarters in Illinois, at least through Aug. 19, is the latest foray in this battle of political wills. After all, we are a sanctuary state, and all are welcome. Notice these Dems didn't abscond to Oklahoma or Arkansas to boycott their legislative session. They made a beeline here and have been garnering much media play with Illinois Democrats by their side, denouncing Trump and this vote grab. Indeed, lame-duck Sen. Dick Durbin said the other day the opposition to the remap is not alone to Texas: 'This is an American issue, where we have to stand together for the families of this country.' But he would be so eloquent for families in Illinois who have seen their votes diluted over the years through the gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts. It's not that this isn't well-known. Gov. JB Pritzker, who signed the 2021 redistricting bill into law which has locked in Democrats' super-majorities in the Legislature, has warned if Texas goes through with this questionable mid-term redistricting, Illinois could do the same. Unsure where those additional blue seats would come from. Of our 17 congressional districts, 14 are ruled by Democrats. That's an 82% majority. Gerrymandering has been around since the nascent days of the republic. The term combines the name of Elbridge Gerry with salamander and is considered anathema to those who seek to keep that elusive 'one man, one vote' in play. Gerry, an early patriot during the American Revolution who eventually became a vice president, was governor of Massachusetts in 1812 when he signed a bill that created a partisan House district in the Boston area that opponents compared to the shape of a salamander. Sort of like the looks of the 5th Congressional District represented by Chicago Democrat Mike Quigley. Quigley's district snakes from deep inside Wrigleyville on Chicago's North Side through Skokie, Schaumburg, Arlington Heights, and eventually finding its way into a sliver of Lake County, with 5.62% of its electorate. Lake County towns include Lake Zurich, Buffalo Grove, Long Grove, Barrington, Kildeer, and Deer Park. Besides being potential voters, what those Lake County communities have in common with Chicagoans only Springfield's Democrat political mapmakers know for certain. Perhaps many once lived in the big city and bolted for the suburbs. State Democrats have voiced concerns that the Republican remap of Texas' congressional districts would be unconstitutional for violating federal voting protections in minority-majority districts. They do this while ignoring what has been done in Illinois, where the redistricting maps were drawn after the 2020 census, not in the middle of the decade. To end this political theater in the future and to install fairness back in the process, there needs to be an independent, nationwide mapmaking system to consider congressional and legislative districts every decade. Talk of remap retaliation by elected leaders in Illinois, California, New York and others sounds like we're living in a banana republic instead of a constitutional one.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment
Over the past three months, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, Illinois, Colorado, New York state, New York City, and other places for the express purpose of forcing them to abolish their "sanctuary city" policies and start aiding the feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws. But unless the U.S. Supreme Court rapidly overturns several of its own precedents, including a recent one from 2018, all of these cases will be constitutional losers for President Donald Trump. Why? Here is how the late conservative legal hero and long-serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spelled it out. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," Scalia wrote for the Court's majority in Printz v. United States (1997), "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." At issue in Printz was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which, among other things, required state and local police to help the feds enforce federal gun control laws. However, Scalia held, such "federal commandeering of state governments" violated the constitutional principles of federalism secured by the 10th Amendment. Scalia's ruling in Printz was recently reaffirmed and expanded by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. At the time it was decided, Printz was widely criticized by liberals, who objected to the idea of state and local officials stymying a federal gun control scheme. Now, the same anticommandeering doctrine that led to a "conservative" result in Printz is standing in the way of Trump's immigration crackdown. According to Trump's Justice Department, sanctuary city policies, such as when local police are generally forbidden from notifying the feds about a noncitizen's custody status or release date from custody, "reflect an intentional effort to obstruct federal law enforcement." But federal agents still retain their own independent authority to enforce federal immigration law inside of sanctuary states and cities, just as federal authorities retain the independent authority to enforce other federal laws in states and cities. The key point under Printz is that it is unconstitutional for the feds to compel local officials to lend them a helping hand in carrying out the enforcement of federal law. Because these sanctuary cases all feature the federal government in direct and open conflict with a state or city, one or more of them will probably end up before the Supreme Court in due time. Perhaps it will be United States v. Illinois. Last week, Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division ruled that the Prairie State's various sanctuary laws were safeguarded from the Trump administration's lawsuit by the anticommandeering principle embraced in Printz, Murphy, and related precedents. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect [Illinois'] decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by" the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge wrote. I expect a majority of the Supreme Court to adopt the same position if or when the opportunity arises. If it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal gun control, it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal immigration control. The national policies under dispute may be different, but the underlying constitutional issue is the same. As long as Printz remains good law, Trump's efforts to override the actions of sanctuary states and cities will be thwarted by Scalia's judgment. The post On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
