Latest news with #HouseBill271
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gianforte vetoes bills that would have limited executive, judicial privilege
Photo illustration by Getty Images. Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed two bills respectively designed to make the executive and judicial branches of government more transparent to the public — but acknowledged the public's strong right to know in the Montana Constitution. In a veto letter, Gianforte also acknowledged his frustration with 'judicial activism.' House Bill 271 was aimed at ensuring transparency by the executive branch by limiting 'executive privilege,' or the governor's power to withhold specific government information. Senate Bill 40 would have required Montana Supreme Court deliberations to be recorded and, after a case closed, be made available to the public. Gianforte, a Republican, vetoed both bills on Friday using similar rationale, and proponents of HB 271, including the bill sponsor, soon pushed back against 'secret decisions' made by the executive branch. However, University of Montana law school faculty member Constance Van Kley said the rationales offer consistency, and she said members of the public don't lose any rights to information and remain free to request government documents. 'Fundamentally, what it reinforces is that … the existence of privileges from the right to know raises constitutional questions, and the scope of any privilege that is asserted against the right to know raises legal questions,' Van Kley said. In his veto letters, the governor said although the Montana Constitution 'contains some of the strongest — if not the strongest — rights to public information,' limitations exist. He said during the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, delegates acknowledged that privileges, 'such as judicial privilege,' shape the scope of the right to know, or allow for some information to be protected. Gianforte said legislators passed SB 40 'in response to rampant judicial activism,' and he understands and shares their 'deep frustration' and sees it 'as a threat to our constitutional order.' 'Time and time again, judges across Montana issue rulings that infringe on the Legislature's policymaking authority and a governor's ability to faithfully execute the laws,' Gianforte said in the letter. 'The effect of Senate Bill 40, however, will chill candor among justices against the public's interest and weaponize those discussions in future litigation. 'Legal arguments will no longer be properly focused on majority decisions of the court and discussion among justices may become less honest and robust.' Van Kley said the delegates in 1972 generally wanted openness in government, but with limits. 'At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were really focused primarily on transparency and not exceptions to transparency,' Van Kley said. 'However, they did recognize that judicial deliberations were generally not open to the public already, and so that did seem to be on the delegates' minds as an exception to the transparency provision.' The governor used a similar argument in his veto of HB 271, although he also cited the Montana Supreme Court's order in O'Neill vs. Gianforte. In that case, a citizen and former government official, Jayson O'Neill, sued the Governor's Office after it would not provide him forms used to track legislation, citing executive privilege and the need for candor in decision-making. The Supreme Court found a gubernatorial privilege is 'necessary to the integrity of government,' but it also said it is not an absolute privilege, and the governor must meet 'a high bar' to keep information private. In the veto letter, the governor said HB 271 attempts to repeal a 'constitutional privilege,' and signing it into law would be contrary to the public interest. 'House Bill 271 categorically limits a governor's constitutional expectation of privacy where he is executing his constitutional duties,' Gianforte said in the letter. Democrat Rep. Ed Stafman of Bozeman sponsored the bill, and he said earlier this year that it would 'restore transparency and open government in the executive branch to what it has consistently been for at least 50 years.' In the earlier interview, Stafman also said Montana hadn't previously recognized executive privilege, the Supreme Court crafted a narrow decision based on common law, and the Legislature has the authority to overturn common law through statute, which his bill aimed to do. In a statement this week about the veto, Stafman said it allows a backslide in Montana's history of open government. 'Even as the judicial and legislative branches become more transparent, if we let the executive branch become the place where secret decisions are made and deals are cut, then that's where the public's constitutionally protected 'right to know' will die,' Stafman said. The Right to Know in Article II Section 9 of the Montana Constitution states the following: 'No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.' House Minority Leader Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, also said Montana's governor answers to the people, and previous governors, both Democrats and Republicans, have made documents available to the public. 'But Gov. Gianforte now sees himself above the law,' Sullivan said in a statement. 'He is hiding documents from the public, battling transparency requests in court, bending the rules, and making new ones, all to hide from the people. What is he hiding?' Van Kley said it would be difficult for other branches of government to claim privilege if HB 271 became law and was found to be constitutional. That's because, according to one view of privilege, it's reasonable to expect that privileges among branches 'should be roughly equivalent to each other,' said Van Kley, with the UM Alexander Blewett III School of Law. Van Kley argued on behalf of plaintiff O'Neill in front of the Montana Supreme Court, so would speak only generally about the Constitutional issues it raised when contacted by the Daily Montanan on Tuesday. In his veto letter, Gianforte discussed the same: 'The Legislature itself has legislative privilege. Senate Bill 40 upsets the separation of powers by eroding the privilege of one branch of government while retaining it in another.' Van Kley said the veto letter outlines a legitimate view of the separation of powers, and it is consistent with the veto letter for SB 40 which claims the judicial privilege is grounded in the separation of powers. The order from the Montana Supreme Court, however, said gubernatorial privilege is among the 'candor privileges,' such as those protecting the confidential relationship between a priest and churchgoer. The order said those privileges are rooted not in separation of powers but in the 'historical and practical need of society for candor between individuals and those from whom they are seeking counsel,' including government officials. Van Kley also said the vetoes take off the table any questions about the constitutionality of the bills, and she said a citizen can still request records and claim a constitutional right to examine documents in Montana. 'The veto is not going to privilege any documents that aren't already privileged,' Van Kley said. Now that a court ruling recognizes executive privilege 'to some degree,' Van Kley said she expects specific questions to emerge and end up litigated. In January 2025, the Montana Supreme Court directed the district court to do a private review of the documents O'Neill had requested to determine whether they were protected or could be released to the public. The case was filed in 2021 and is pending. Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, sponsored SB 40, and he could not be reached for comment Tuesday by voicemail.
American Press
12-05-2025
- Politics
- American Press
Legislators propose 22 amendments for Louisiana
(Special to the American Press) Louisiana legislators have filed 22 proposed state constitutional amendments during the 2025 legislative session. However, only a handful of those amendments may end up on the ballot and one has already been withdrawn. Some of those proposals are duplicates and others were losers from the moment they were filed. Those that haven't been heard by a committee face tough futures. Others are rewritten amendments that voters rejected on March 29. Senate Bill 8 would make it easier to fire state classified employees who are protected by civil service. It is awaiting a vote by the full Senate. The new city of St. George in East Baton Rouge Parish would be allowed to create a school system by SB 25. It passed the Senate 26-5 and was sent to the House. The state's homestead exemption that gives homeowners a $75,000 tax exemption could be increased by $22,500 by parish governing authorities by SB 56. It is still in committee. House Bill 271 would allow parish governing authorities to increase the homestead by $5,000. It was approved 9-5 in one committee and sent to a second committee. Another bill, SB 57, would remove income limitations on freezing the homestead exemption property assessment for persons ages 65 or older. It is awaiting a Senate vote. SB 115 authorizes a new assessment level for homeowners who meet the federal poverty guidelines. It is awaiting a final Senate vote. The House has HB 269 that increases the homestead income special exemption level from $100,000 annually to $200,000 for those 65 and older, veterans and the disabled. It is still in committee. HB 300 is a similar amendment. Judges have to retire at age 70 and SB 86 would repeal the retirement age for judges. That has been tried more than once and been defeated by the state's voters. The amendment failed 12-25, its first vote in the Senate. The House has a similar bill, HB 63, that is still in committee. The spending of any foreign money in state elections is prohibited by SB 109. It passed the Senate 34-5 and is in a House committee. HB 294 says 20% of all severance taxes should be sent to parishes and eliminates dollar amounts. It is awaiting House final passage. An amendment that limits government spending, HB 295, has passed one committee and is in another one. Fire protection officers employed by an airport authority would become eligible for state supplemental pay under provisions of HB 349. It is still in committee. Two new members would be added to the five-member Louisiana Public Service Commission by HB364. They would be appointed by the governor. It is still in committee. Parishes would be authorized to exempt business inventory taxes from property taxes by HB 366. They would receive state funding if they exempt those taxes. It has passed the House unanimously and is in the Senate. HB 448 would prohibit nonprofit organizations from receiving a property tax exemption on property used for commercial purposes, even if it relates to the income-tax-exempt purposes of the organization. The bill is still in committee. Solar facilities would have limited eligibility from participating in the Industrial Tax Exemption Program by HB 464. It is still in committee. School systems would be able to provide salary increases for teachers and other school employees under HB 466, which is not an amendment. It is awaiting House final passage. Three education trust funds would be eliminated by HB 473 in order to fund teacher and support raises required in HB 466. The amendment is awaiting a final vote in the House. Constitutional amendments would be limited to one object under provisions of HB 471. It is still in committee. The Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund would be eliminated and its funds would be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Fund (the rainy day fund) by HB 678. It is awaiting House final passage. The goal is to provide legislators with additional budget funds.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill aims to ensure public records from Governor's Office are open, limit ‘executive privilege'
People are seen on the third and fourth floors of the Montana Capitol building on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan) Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, said he doesn't think the governor should get to withhold public records just to gain a tactical advantage over the Montana Legislature. Monday, the Senate Judiciary committee heard House Bill 271, by Stafman, to limit the ability of the Governor's Office to keep documents out of public view. Stafman said the bill 'would restore transparency and open government in the executive branch to what it has consistently been for at least 50 years.' In a lawsuit still playing out in the court system, a member of the public tried to see 'agency bill monitoring' forms the governor was using to gather feedback about legislation and its sponsors in 2021. The Gianforte administration argued 'executive privilege' protected those forms from public view in part because the governor needs candid feedback, and openness would diminish that candor. In January, the Montana Supreme Court found Gov. Greg Gianforte may have legitimate reasons to withhold the information, but he can't refuse to turn over documents without having a court review them to find out. The court also said the governor doesn't get to keep them secret just because he's the governor. But Stafman said Montana hasn't previously recognized executive privilege, the Supreme Court crafted a narrow decision based on common law, and the Legislature has the authority to overturn common law through statute. He also said the court decision effectively reduced 'the timely right to know.' And Stafman said his bill intends to fix those problems. He said it would be consistent with the right to know protected in the Montana Constitution, and it fixes a practical problem of ensuring people can in fact see documents without being forced to go to court. Stafman said his bill aims to ensure documents from the Governor's Office related to the Legislature, politics and policy remain public, and it would keep personal and private information confidential. Last month, the bill passed the House 56-44, and Stafman told the Senate Judiciary committee he couldn't recall any member of the public who testified against it earlier. At the hearing Monday, Stafman agreed some information in state government is protected, such as medical records, income taxes records, and more (he had a long list of those items available). However, Stafman also said he would not be opposed to seeing the committee amend the bill to establish even more openness in the other two branches of government, the legislature and the judiciary. Generally, he said he would like the Legislature to send a message that the goal isn't about the governor personally, it's about 'sunshine' in government. 'This isn't about you. This is about open records,' Stafman said. No one spoke against the bill, and Derf Johnson, with the Montana Environmental Information Center, the only proponent Monday, said such legislation would help him assist the public. The MEIC receives calls from people worried about, say, a potential gravel pit next door or other activity that might affect property rights and property values, Johnson said. Johnson said transparency is good for the public, it's good for holding government accountable, and it's part of the Montana Constitution's protection of the right to know. The bill would set boundaries that ensure the governor is subject to public record requests under the right to know, Johnson said, as he should be. 'He makes important decisions that really impact people's lives on a day to day basis,' Johnson said. Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, said the governor had endorsed several candidates in a primary, and she wanted to know if more information about endorsements might be available if the bill were in place — or if it would be protected. 'We were interested in finding out how deep that went,' Manzella said. Stafman said it was a good question, and given the matter was political, he believed it would be public. 'Without this bill, he might very well say it's private. In fact, he almost surely will,' Stafman said. In response to a question from Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, Stafman said the Governor's Office had not weighed in on his bill. As part of his presentation, Stafman provided the committee a letter from Evan Barrett, who worked for previous governors, was involved when he was not on staff, and talked with legal counsel for other former governors. The letter said Barrett personally did not recollect executive privilege being asserted, and his research did not turn up any such claims either going back decades. The committee did not take immediate action on the bill Monday.
