Latest news with #HouseBill295
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislative committee supports yet another version of partisan judicial elections
The door to the old Supreme Court Chamber at the Montana Capitol. (Micah Drew/Daily Montanan) Bruce Spencer, a lobbyist representing the State Bar of Montana, did not need to elaborate on his organization's position on a bill before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday — he's said it all before. 'I'm trying to think of something new to say,' Spencer told the committee. 'I've got to be honest, I don't have much.' Spencer was testifying for at least the seventh time against a bill that seeks to make Montana's judiciary more aligned with partisan politics. Another bill in the same vein was introduced earlier this week. Friday's hearing was on House Bill 838, introduced by Speaker of the House Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage. The legislation would allow candidates for the Montana Supreme Court to run under a party affiliation, or under a nonpartisan label. The bill would also create a new primary system for Supreme Court candidates, putting all candidates on a primary ballot regardless of which party primary a voter participates in. The top two candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would proceed to the general election. 'It's my personal opinion that (judges) have already chosen a party to run under,' Ler said. 'We see that time and time again with the way that the Montana Supreme Court operates, whether it's them meddling in our rules, them pre-determining the outcome on the bench of different legislation we have, or the decisions that they make, which seem to be completely against the will of the majority of Montana voters.' The bill had no proponents, but drew a dozen opponents during the hearing. Many of the arguments put forth have been hashed out repeatedly in both the House and Senate so far this legislative session. Three other pieces of legislation have sought to specifically make judicial races partisan. House Bill 295 failed to clear a House vote before transmittal, as did HB 751, which would have required Supreme Court candidates to declare a party affiliation. Senate Bill 42, however, has had more momentum, sailing through the Senate — albeit on partisan lines. SB 42 requires judges at any level to attach a partisan affiliation to their candidacy. Those bills' proponents called them 'voter education' bills, seeking to add transparency to elections that are conducted with seemingly less knowledge of candidates than other partisan races. Ler said since he believes the judiciary is already partisan, voters should be made aware of that before they reach the bench. But opponents pushed back against that characterization, saying judges make rulings based on the Constitution and the law, and should not be beholden to a party platform. 'Judges don't make decisions on the basis of a constituency, and that's what political parties are. They're setting out values for a constituency,' said Al Smith with the Montana Trial Lawyers Association. 'That's not what judges do. They look at the Constitution, the law, the facts of the case. They should be free from political pressure.' Speaking specifically to the characterization of partisan elections as voter education bills, Anne Sherwood, with Friends of the Third Branch, an educational organization focused on the state's judiciary, said the claim voters can't find information about candidates is disingenuous. 'This bill is also not going to increase voter education. It strains credulity that in today's digital age, somebody cannot find information on these candidates,' Sherwood said. '… We have the internet. Now we have Twitter. Now we have Facebook. Now we have independent campaign spending.' Spencer added the State Bar holds forums for Supreme Court candidates every election cycle — another way voters could learn about the candidates. The House Judiciary Committee passed HB 838 out of committee on a 12-8 party-line vote. Two additional bills related to a partisan judiciary met opposing fates in the Legislature. House Bill 39, which allows political parties to spend money on judicial races, was signed by the governor earlier this month, while House BIll 169, which would have let judges and judicial candidates take part in partisan activities, died in the Senate.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
GA lawmakers file bill to let homeowners sue for ‘lost value' when cities maintain public nuisances'
Georgia lawmakers want to let property and homeowners sue their governments over lost property values, when it's caused by a failures to clear out homeless encampments and other public nuisances. According to House Bill 295, if a city or other municipal government adopts policies or patterns of not complying with bans on immigration sanctuary policies or blocks on various public nuisance activities, leading to a 'local government maintaining a public nuisance,' the property owners would be entitled to sue for loss of value at their properties. The legislation says that if an owner 'incurs documented expenses to mitigate the effects' of those policies on their property, or if the fair market value is reduced by those policies, then they are entitled to seek compensation. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] As far as how much, the bill says it would be equal to: The documented expenses that were reasonably necessary, at the discretion of the owner, to mitigate the effects The reduction in fair market value resulting from the policy Claims made to seek this money would have to be submitted in writing, contain the full measure of compensation being sought and state which policy caused the loss or necessity to spend money to mitigate the effects. The claim must be presented within two years of occurring, according to the legislation, and must be responded to within 30 days of being presented to a local governing body. TRENDING STORIES: Georgia lawmakers file bill to protect first responders from harassment at emergency scenes Postal worker accused of stealing credit cards from mail on her route Search for missing Atlanta teacher is largest recovery effort ever on Lake Oconee Among the items marked out for what counts as a public nuisance, the lawmakers who filed the legislation named: Illegal public camping Loitering Obstructing public thoroughfares Panhandling Possessing or using controlled substances Shoplifting Public intoxication or public urination while trespassing on private property The owners would also have to provide an itemized list of costs and losses from the situation to form the factual basis of the claim, the bill says. If governments agree to responsibility, they would have to then pay the amount requested within 30 days. If they reject the claim or do not respond within 30 days, owners can instead bring legal action in superior court against the government in question. This means that if a homeowner believes their city's policies have caused their home to lose value, they can ask for monetary compensation. If they are denied, they can sue the city they live in for those funds in court. The legislation did not contain provisions for limiting overall numbers of claims per owner, nor did it provide specifics for burdens of proof on the claimant, meaning that it's solely up to the government being accused of causing value loss to prove it has not done so. As written, the property owners can sue over any policy they believe caused them to lose property value, so long as they provide an itemized list of what they've spent to reduce more losses and which policies they say are doing so. The proposed bill also says the government has the burden of proof in court cases as far as demonstrating why their policies do not cause property value losses. Explicitly, the bill would remove sovereign immunity from municipal governments in these particular cases. Additionally, property owners would be able to pursue claims once per tax year for each property parcel they own. If a government loses in court, they would owe the property owner the amounts sought as well as awarding attorneys fees and costs. Amounts, however, are capped at the total ad valorem tax for the property in question. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
