Latest news with #HouseBill710
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
GOP majority, governor had few victories in push to overhaul judicial system
The door to the old Supreme Court Chamber at the Montana Capitol. (Micah Drew/Daily Montanan) In the final hours of Montana's 2025 Legislative session, a long, drawn-out war over whether to allow the state's highest elected judges to run with partisan affiliation had its final battle. Judicial reform was a stated priority for the GOP-dominated Legislature this session, an idea backed by Gov. Greg Gianforte. In particular, he sought to have state Supreme Court justices elected on a partisan basis, instead of the current, nonpartisan elections. Many Republicans said a party affiliation would offer voters transparency to better understand the candidates on the ballot, while opponents of the idea said politicizing the court system would lead hurt a justice's impartiality. Even recently elected Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson, a more conservative member of the state's highest bench, warned lawmakers against making the judiciary partisan. Lawmakers seemed to take Swanson's words to heart, killing a half-dozen bills that proposed different ways to bring about the partisan change to the judiciary branch. But during the last two weeks of the session, Gianforte remained optimistic, telling the press repeatedly that there was 'still time.' On the morning of April 30, the last day of the session, during a round of votes on a few final pieces of legislation, House Minority Leader Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, received a text. And then another. The governor's office, a lobbyist told her, was planning to attach an amendment to House Bill 710, a bill titled 'Generally Revise Laws Related to the Judiciary,' that would have made Supreme Court races partisan. The governor's office did not respond to requests for comment on this story. However, in Montana, a governor can make a suggestion to a bill with an amendatory veto, meaning it's a suggestion until it's approved by the state House and Senate. Sullivan said she never saw the specific amendment — though a previously published gubernatorial amendment to another bill would have allowed Supreme Court candidates run with a partisan affiliation — but she confirmed the governor's office was working on a similar amendment. The amendatory veto would have dropped the drastic and much debated issue in the closing moments of a long Legislature that had been in session nearly constantly since Jan. 2. And she wasn't going to have it. 'I was going to leave,' she told the Daily Montanan. Using her own legislative power, Sullivan sent word back that if the governor proposed the change, she was ready to stand up and make the motion to sine die, adjourning the Legislature on the spot. If the Legislature adjourned right then and there, it would have ended the process of reforming the judiciary – and halted several other key bills Republicans supported. One of the few bills left for the chamber to vote on included final approval of one of the major property tax bills, which gave Sullivan additional leverage in her threat to leave. With 42 Democrats, she only needed nine Republicans who wanted to end the session, and 39 had opposed the property tax bill. She could tank that bill to keep partisan elections at bay. There still would have been a property tax relief bill — another one had already passed — but the bills were linked and Sullivan said it would have created difficulties in the implementation. It was the 'last thing I wanted to do,' she told the Daily Montanan. But 'something as explosive as that issue was all session… why do it in a governor's amendment at the end unless you're trying to play games and cause chaos?' Ultimately, through discussions with other legislators including Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, the architect behind the property tax bill and close legislative ally of Gianforte, the governor's amendment never materialized. The Legislature adjourned hours later, and in 2026, an open seat for the Montana Supreme Court will be decided in a nonpartisan election — even though some politicians question that. 'We have nonpartisan races in Montana in name only,' Gianforte said during an April 17 press conference. 'We should call a spade a spade, and attribute them to the party from which they come.' The last-minute attempt to implement changes to the judicial system was 'super irritating' to Sullivan. 'How many times do we have to vote on the same bill?' she said. 'It was a fitting end for a session of playing whack-a-mole with partisan judges and it was my last whack-a-mole moment that was about to come in at the last minute.' During the interim, the Senate Special Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform requested nearly 30 bill drafts related to changing the judicial branch, including one, Senate Bill 42, which would have required judges at every level to run with partisan affiliation. During the session's 85 days, an additional four bills hit the floor with various versions of partisan elections, along with adjacent bills allowing political parties to fund judicial candidates and allow candidates to take part in political events. But among the 150 lawmakers, the appetite for injecting additional politics into the court system wasn't there — at least not for a majority of legislators. Lawmakers voted against all five bills directly changing how judges are elected — some voted down in the House, others by the Senate. In fact, from the original 27 bills that came from the interim committee, only a handful were sent to the governor's desk. 'I'll say this, what we do have is a great foundation for reform,' Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, who served on the committee, told reporters after the session adjourned. 'I think that judicial reform is critical, continuously. It's important for our judges to have accountability. It's important for preventative transparency, and what we did this session helps start that process.' Among the bills that passed was Senate Bill 40, which requires that any closed meetings involving judicial deliberations be recorded and made public once a case is finalized; Senate Bill 41, which ensures that when a district court judge is substituted from a case, the process for replacing them is randomized; and Senate Bill 45, which establishes a judicial performance commission that will evaluate justices and give the public more insight into their effectiveness. 'You all know, when it comes to voting for judges, it is very difficult to know who they are, what their track record is, and how they rule on the bench. This bill will give greater transparency to that,' McGillvray said. Another win for the GOP majority was passage of House Bill 39, which allows political parties to donate to judicial candidates, offering at least a little bit of partisanship into elections. 'I think we had a good session on judicial reform,' McGillvray said. 'We're undaunted in our efforts to continue that, and we will do so next session.'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Legislature's budget committee approves half of funding proposed for digital library grants
The rotunda at the Idaho State Capitol building in Boise as seen on March 23, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun) After initially trying to zero out all funding earlier this month, Idaho legislative budget writers on Thursday approved 50% of the funding for a federal grant designed to help increase internet access for Idahoans who face barriers to getting online. Idaho Legislature's budget committee kills federal funding for home energy rebates The Idaho Legislature's Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, or JFAC, approved on Thursday a motion to authorize the Idaho Commission for Libraries to accept and spend $1,231,000 out of a $2.5 million Digital Access for All Idahoans grant. The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, or JFAC, is a powerful committee made up of 10 senators and 10 members of the Idaho House of Representatives. The committee generally meets daily during the legislative session and is responsible for setting every budget for every state agency and department. Funding for the grant was authorized by the federal Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act. The grant is intended to help Idahoans who face barriers to getting online, including seniors, veterans, low-income families and people who live in rural and remote areas. Some of the grant money goes toward paying for laptop and desktop computers at libraries in more than dozen Idaho communities, including Burley, Challis, Middleton, Payette and Plummer. The money for the grant was all from the federal government; there was no request for state general fund money from the Idaho Commission for Libraries for the grant. On March 7, JFAC zeroed out a $2.5 million funding request for fiscal year 2026 for the Digital Access for All Idahoans grant after Sen. Cindy Carlson, R-Riggins, said the grant program contains elements of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Opponents of the grant said the grants could be used to benefit people whose first language is not English, or people who do not speak English. However, the March 7 action to zero out the grant funding failed on a tied 5-5 vote among the 10 House members serving on JFAC, which is why the library budget and grant was back before JFAC on Thursday. Carlson said Thursday that reducing the grant funding ties in with a law she sponsored last year, House Bill 710, that regulates so-called 'harmful materials' in libraries. CONTACT US 'We passed some language, a bill, last year, and we're actually just trying to reduce the grant money that's coming,' Carlson said Thursday. 'This grant money is only for operating expenditures, and we're just trying to put some side rails on what's going on with the libraries, trying to get them – with some of the additional language – trying to get them to follow the law that we passed last year, House Bill 710.' Carlson did not provide any evidence during Thursday's JFAC meeting indicating Idaho libraries are not complying with House Bill 710. Rep. Soñia Galaviz, a Boise Democrat, made an unsuccessful motion to pass the Idaho Commission for Libraries budget with approval for the full $2.5 million grant, but she was overruled by the Republican supermajority. Galaviz said librarians across the state reached out to JFAC after the initial March 7 attempt to zero out the grant funding. 'We heard from libraries across the state – Moscow, Troy, Hailey, Potlatch, Elmore County, Genesee and beyond,' Galaviz said. 'They asked us – implored us – that we would reconsider based on the programs they intend to offer. We heard about computer classes ready to be offered to seniors teaching about cybersecurity and helping folks understand the danger of clicking on links from emails that maybe they don't know who the sender is. Telehealth for the rural communities. Computer access for veterans who want to access their VA services.' Galaviz said she was especially moved by an email from an Idaho senior citizen who told Galaviz she learned on a computer at a local library how to send and receive emails with her 14-year-old granddaughter after the screen on her cell phone proved too small for the grandmother to read. 'The screen isn't big enough, so she relies on that laptop access that the libraries provide,' Galaviz said. In the end, Carlson's motion to authorize half of the grant funding won out over Galaviz's effort to approve the full funding for the grant. The fiscal year 2026 budget enhancements for the Idaho Commission for Libraries still must pass the full Idaho House of Representatives and Idaho Senate to take effect. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge denies coalition's request to temporarily block Idaho's library law
In Preston, the Larsen-Sant Public Library's colorful books line the shelves of its children's book section, accompanied by stuffed animals, like a large purple octopus above the shelves. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) Editor's note: This story has been updated to include a quote from Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador. A federal judge has denied an Idaho coalition's request to stop the enforcement of House Bill 710 — a law that took effect in July requiring Idaho public libraries to relocate items that visitors deem harmful to children or risk facing legal action. The same month the law took effect, a coalition of private Idaho schools, privately-funded libraries and parents sued Idaho officials to stop the enforcement of the library law, alleging the law violates the First Amendment rights of private schools and libraries and 14th Amendment protections for the fundamental liberty interest of parents. But Judge Amanda Brailsford on Tuesday denied the plaintiffs' request to block its enforcement, and she dismissed some of the plaintiffs from the case. This case is one of two lawsuits related to House Bill 710, a highly controversial law that took effect after years of attempts from the Idaho Legislature to restrict access to library materials — particularly as they relate to sex education, LGBTQ+ people and diverse communities. These efforts have led librarians to consider leaving Idaho, and it even led at least one rural library to adopt an adults-only policy. There were 11 original plaintiffs in the case; however, Tuesday's decision dismissed eight of them, including four parents and their two children, and two libraries that do not receive public funds, including the Community Library Association and Collister United Methodist Church. The remaining plaintiffs include the Northwest Association of Independent Schools, Sun Valley Community School and the Boise-based Foothills School of Arts and Sciences. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said he was pleased with the judge's decision. 'I am pleased the court ruled that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of this case and are also unlikely to prove that Idaho's law protecting minors from harmful material in schools and public libraries is somehow unconstitutional,' he told the Idaho Capital Sun. 'While the case itself was not dismissed, we will continue to defend Idaho's law as this process continues.' The Idaho Capital Sun has reached out to the plaintiffs' legal team for comment. Recap of House Bill 710 House Bill 710 codified the process that libraries must follow when receiving complaints from adult visitors who believe an item is harmful to minors. Any adult or minor who believes a library item is harmful to minors can provide a written notice to the school or public library asking for its relocation. The library board has 60 days to review the complaint. If the item is deemed harmful to minors, the library must relocate it to an area accessible by adults only. If the library does not relocate the item within the given time frame, then the individual may sue the library and recover at least $250. The plaintiffs alleged the law is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment and vague under the 14th Amendment. The court found the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of those claims and they also fail to show they are likely to suffer irreparable harm while the law is in place. 'The Court does not question the genuineness of Plaintiffs' concerns raised in their affidavits,' Brailsford wrote. 'Schools and public libraries are often pillars of our communities and formative in many of our lives. Regardless, Plaintiffs have yet to show irreparable harm that justifies a preliminary injunction.' New lawsuit seeks to stop enforcement of Idaho library materials bill Brailsford found that the parent plaintiffs do not have standing because the law is not directed at regulating parental decisions. 'H.B. 710 does not prohibit a child, parent, or legal guardian's conduct and does not contain any enforcement provision applicable to them,' Brailsford wrote. 'Rather, the statute only prohibits the conduct of schools and public libraries and only provides for the enforcement of a violation against schools and public libraries.' Likewise, Brailsford said the two libraries in the lawsuit do not have standing because they are not public libraries. While they are open to the public, the Community Library, located in Ketchum, and the Collister United Methodist Church library, in Boise, do not receive public funds and are not subject to the law. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maryland General Assembly wants to change election laws. Here's how
BALTIMORE — Even when she was incarcerated, Gwendolyn Levi was an advocate. Levi, who spent 16 years in prison, remembered years of gathering with other incarcerated women to talk about pending legislation that impacted all aspects of their lives, both inside and out of the correctional facility. 'We contacted our family, we wrote legislators, we lobbied organizations to offer our input and to have some information,' she said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Tuesday. 'The one thing we couldn't do, that would ultimately make a difference, was vote.' But under House Bill 710, a measure sponsored by Montgomery County Del. Jheanelle Wilkins, a Democrat and vice chair of the committee, people convicted of a felony and serving a prison sentence could be allowed to register to vote. Republican delegates, however, questioned the logistics of the bill, which would allow incarcerated people to register to vote in the place they consider to be their residence, or the last known address for people serving life sentences, Wilkins said. 'It's really hard to tell when someone's in jail for five years, seven years, 15 years, where they're going to live the day they get out because they don't know until the very end of their time,' said House Minority Leader Jason Buckel, who represents Allegany County. 'The life that they had before they got incarcerated, that may be gone — their family, their connections to that community, may not exist anymore.' The measure is one of several bills Maryland lawmakers are considering this year to change election laws. Democratic-sponsored bills aim to increase access to voting and create more transparency in the processes to fill vacancies in the General Assembly, while Republican-sponsored legislation focuses on verifying voters' identities and signature requirements on absentee ballots. Several bills introduced by lawmakers in this session would expand access to voting. Senate Bill 66 and House Bill 781 would require the state board of elections to create guidelines for local boards to accommodate and expedite voting for older people and people with disabilities through dedicated lines, signs and priority seating. Election judges would also receive training. Charles County Sen. Arthur Ellis, a Democrat sponsoring the Senate bill, said some older and disabled voters who showed up to the polls last year asked for accommodations but were told they had to wait in line with other voters. To Ellis, it's 'unacceptable' to have so many voters disenfranchised. 'They should have a choice to vote the way they want to vote, and not to be insulted by election workers or anybody else telling them … 'Please go away, you're not needed here,'' he said. Senate Bill 615 and House Bill 816 would make ballot questions posed to voters easier to understand by eliminating legal jargon and adding a statement to explain the outcome of each choice. Sponsored by Montgomery County Sen. Cheryl Kagan and Howard County Del. Jessica Feldmark, both Democrats, the bills would also require simpler language for petitions seeking to put a question on the ballot. State and local boards of elections would have to post the complete text of ballot questions at least 65 days before the general election. Additional legislation, House Bill 253 and Senate Bill 991, would automatically send absentee ballots to registered voters in pretrial detention at correctional facilities without them having to submit absentee ballot applications. Del. Kevin Harris, a Democrat representing Charles and Prince George's counties, said many detained people are often left unable to vote due to logistical challenges associated with casting absentee ballots. 'Disenfranchising people before they're even found guilty of their accusation is damaging to society and sets a dangerous precedent,' he said. Several bills seek to refine what happens when a seat in the General Assembly is left vacant. Over the last few months, multiple lawmakers left their seats to take different positions. For instance, former state Sen. Jill Carter was appointed to the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals, and former state Sen. Sarah Elfreth was elected to Congress. Other former lawmakers took on roles in Gov. Wes Moore's administration in 2023. Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 174, sponsored by Kagan and Del. Linda Foley, both Montgomery County Democrats, would allow Marylanders to vote during next year's general election to change how vacancies in the state legislature are filled in the constitution. The legislation would require the governor to call for special primary and general elections if a state lawmaker leaves office at least 55 days before the candidate filing deadline for regular state elections held in the second year of their term. Under current law, vacancies are filled through local central committees, which forward a successor's name to the governor, who makes the final appointment. However, if the vacancy occurs fewer than 55 days before the filing deadline, the governor would appoint someone to serve the remainder of the lawmaker's unexpired term under the bill's provisions. 'We just think that the voters ought to be able to fill those for the balance of the four years,' Kagan said of the vacancies during a Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee bill hearing. However, not every local central committee fills vacant seats in the General Assembly in the same way. Senate Bill 171 and House Bill 237, sponsored by Sen. Clarence Lam, Del. Julie Palakovich Carr, a Montgomery County Democrat, and Del. Mike Griffith, a Republican who represents Cecil and Harford counties, seek to make those processes consistent across the state. The legislation, which has been brought forward in the Senate multiple times, would require the application period to fill a vacancy open for at least 7 days and advertise the details of the vacancy-filling process. Applications submitted to a central committee would be posted online, and members of central committees who applied to fill a vacancy would be required to recuse themselves from the process and vote. Lam, a Democrat who represents Anne Arundel and Howard counties, added that he is submitting amendments to make any central committee vote to fill a vacancy be taken by signed ballots and have voting results by each member be disclosed publicly. 'Although I hope the state will eventually pass a special elections bill in the General Assembly for the broader issue of these vacancies, this bill will help ensure that the current process is transparent to the public,' he said. Republicans are proposing several measures to verify voters' identities. House Bill 91, sponsored by Del. Bob Long, a Baltimore County Republican, would require in-person voters to prove their identity by showing a government-issued photo ID or a non-government ID and documents proving a voter's name and address to an election judge. House Bill 67, also sponsored by Long and other House Republicans, would prohibit local boards of elections from removing absentee ballots from return envelopes unless they're signed by the voter it was issued to, excluding uniformed service members serving overseas. Signatures would be verified by comparing the signed envelope to a voter's registration record. It's not the first time Republicans have pushed these bills in the General Assembly — similar legislation has been introduced in the last three sessions. ---------
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Book publishers, authors, Donnelly Public Library sue Idaho officials over library materials law
A woman thumbs through a book called 'All Are Welcome' at a read-in event Aug. 10 to protest the passage of House Bill 710, held in front of the Idaho State Capitol Building. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) National book publishers, authors, the Donnelly Public Library, and a handful of Idaho parents and students sued the Idaho officials on Tuesday to block the state's library materials law. The lawsuit, filed in federal court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, challenges Idaho's law adopted in 2024 that requires libraries move materials deemed 'harmful to minors,' or face lawsuits. 'We are not getting rid of books': How libraries across Idaho are implementing new materials law The lawsuit alleges Idaho's law violates the constitutional rights of publishers, authors, parents, librarians, educators and students, 'by forcing public schools and libraries to undertake drastic measures to restrict minors' access to books, or face injunction and/or monetary penalty.' The lawsuit alleges Idaho's law, passed by the Idaho Legislature and signed by Gov. Brad Little through House Bill 710, is 'vague and sweeping.' The lawsuit requests the court enjoin the law's enforcement and declare the law unconstitutional and void for violating First and 14th Amendment rights in the U.S. Constitution. In response to the new law, Donnelly Public Library — a tiny rural Idaho library in Valley County — adopted an adults-only policy, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. In the lawsuit, several publishers claim their books have been restricted in Idaho libraries following the law. The lawsuit is against Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, several Idaho county prosecuting attorneys and the Eagle Public Library Board of Trustees. In October, the Eagle library board relocated 23 books after a closed-door deliberation, Idaho Education News reported. Editor's note: This is a breaking news story that will be updated.
