Latest news with #SenateBill49
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House votes down bill granting immunity to constitutional officers who are lawyers
Photo illustration by Getty Images. A bill to grant immunity to lawyers who are also elected as Constitutional officers — such as the attorney general or governor — failed to get out of the House this week on a 45-53 vote. All present Democrats voted against it and 12 Republicans joined them despite arguments from Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, that the bill made practical and political sense. The bill came out of the Senate Special Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, part of swath of priority legislation this year for Republicans. With support from sponsor Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to amend Senate Bill 49 to postpone the date it would take effect. Rep. Tom France, D-Missoula, suggested the amendment would address concerns the legislation intends to protect Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who is facing disciplinary charges. An original draft of the bill only applied to the attorney general. On the House floor Monday, Millett pointed to a couple examples where he believed the bill would be helpful, including the case against Knudsen. 'This is a freedom of speech issue and will allow our constitutional officers and members of the legislature who just happen to be lawyers from being persecuted for their speech by the lawyer disciplinary system,' Millett said. Currently, the attorney general is 'hobbled' from defending the legislature, as evidenced by the disciplinary case underway, Millett said. However, Millett also said Gov. Greg Gianforte 'railed against the Supreme Court' in his state of the state address. The governor did so without fear he would be 'dragged in front of the ODC,' the Office for Disciplinary Counsel — but Millett said that wouldn't be true if Gianforte also was a lawyer. The Office for Disciplinary Counsel handles discipline against members of the bar. 'If this isn't a chilling effect on speech, I don't know what is,' Millett said. Lawyers are sworn to abide by rules of professional conduct, which include respect for the legal system. In his vehement defense of the legislature during a previous dispute, Knudsen at one point said he did not recognize the court's order as binding and would not follow it. The Office for Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint alleging violations, and the Commission on Practice recommended the Montana Supreme Court temporarily suspend Knudsen. The case is pending. In response to ethics charges by the ODC, Knudsen has said he could have phrased things differently. He also recently described the disciplinary process as a 'kangaroo court' to KGVO. To protect both speech and the separation of powers, Millett said the bill would create a small carveout for Constitutional officers, also the superintendent of public schools, auditor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state. If it had passed, the bill would have protected members of the legislature as well. On the floor during a short debate, Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, argued against it. He said he believes immunity from accountability should be granted only 'very, very sparingly,' but the bill provides broad immunity. 'The bill would erode accountability, encourage abuse of power, undermine the rule of law, (and) reduce public trust in government,' Stafman said.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to protect constitutional officers who are lawyers from discipline sparks debate
(Photo illustration by Getty Images.) A quick back-and-forth between Sen. Barry Usher and Rep. Tom France addressed the elephant in the room with a bill that would prohibit disciplinary proceedings against constitutional officers who are lawyers, albeit with exceptions. In 2023, Attorney General Austin Knudsen was accused of 41 counts of professional misconduct — charges his lawyer has argued should be dismissed. The case and any discipline are pending with the Montana Supreme Court, but this session, Sen. Usher, R-Billings, sponsored Senate Bill 49 to protect constitutional officers who are attorneys from discipline while in office. Those officers include the attorney general, and also the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, superintendent of public instruction, and auditor, and the law would apply to legislators too. The bill got out of the Senate on a 29-21 vote on third reading, and it prompted a heated debate in the House Judiciary Committee this week. In a hearing Monday, Usher said it offers immunity to legislators or constitutional officers who are attorneys and speaking in the course of their work as elected officials. 'It's a free speech issue,' Usher said. No proponents testified for the bill. Rep. France, D-Missoula, said he understood many of Usher's arguments, but also said the AG's role is a bit different than the role of the other constitutional officers. He said the AG serves in a dual capacity, as a constitutional officer, but also as an officer of the court. 'It seems to me that the Attorney General, of all of our elected officers, has a high duty to respect the court and very carefully follow the rules of professional conduct,' France said. As such, France asked if Usher would accept an amendment that would exclude the AG from immunity. Usher, however said he would not consider that a friendly amendment. France then brought up a different idea. He said the AG made some comments France, as an attorney, thought 'pushed the limits of what was acceptable' and ones he considered 'an attack on the court's integrity.' The Commission on Practice, which hears claims against attorneys, held a hearing in fall 2024 and recommended a 90-day suspension of Knudsen's law license; a final decision is pending and a hearing is scheduled on Friday. France asked if Usher would accept an amendment to push the effective date of the bill 'so that we don't look like we're giving him a get-out-of-jail-free card.' Currently, the effective date is upon passage and approval, and it applies retroactively to any disciplinary proceeding occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2024. Usher said he would accept that amendment as friendly, but he's heard the allegation before. 'I have been accused that this is why this bill is coming forward, but that would be a friendly amendment,' Usher said. He also said he believes the case against Knudsen will conclude before the bill gets to the governor's desk. The bill was part of a suite of legislation that came out of the Senate Special Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, a priority this session for Republicans, who have clashed with the courts. Originally, the bill was requested to exempt only the attorney general from disciplinary measures, according to a summary of bill draft requests from the committee. A subsequent list of draft bill requests broadened the scope to all constitutional officers and legislators. The committee didn't take immediate action on the bill Monday, and a draft amendment wasn't posted Tuesday. At the hearing, Rep. Alanah Griffith, D-Big Sky, a lawyer, said professional rules require her to be truthful and honest, including to the legislature. Griffith said she feared the bill would give constitutional officers a pass on ethics when they present bills. 'Do you think that's a good idea?' Griffith said. Usher said you don't have to be an attorney to uphold ethics, and the bill doesn't intend to be a license to 'lie, cheat and steal.' 'I'm very offended by that, and I'm offended that you brought it up again,' Usher said. He also said all elected officials are held accountable at the ballot box. Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, said she had similar concerns as Griffith. Zephyr said as she read it, the bill would create a situation where the AG could 'lie through his teeth' about financial needs in his office. Usher said he'd like to be able to prosecute someone who lies to the legislature, but he hasn't found support for that idea in the past. Plus, he said, lots of people can misrepresent information to lawmakers. 'So could any of the witnesses you had today that aren't attorneys,' Usher said. Zephyr said she was concerned the bill was a step backwards if the concern was about being truthful, but Usher said it didn't make sense to have different standards. Say a person is an attorney and is elected as superintendent of public instruction, he said. 'Why is that person held at a different standard than the last OPI superintendent that was not an attorney?' Usher said. Rep. Tracy Sharp, R-Polson, said there's no question a 'tremendous battle' is taking place in this country involving the legislature and the judiciary. He asked Usher if one aim of the bill was for a lawyer elected into one of those roles to be able to speak freely of the judiciary. 'You're trying to allow that elected official to speak openly and critically of that body, absent punishment,' Sharp said. 'Is that what this bill is trying to do?' Usher said that's one example. He said currently, the governor is allowed, say, in his state-of-the-state address, to criticize the judiciary, and the governor shouldn't lose that ability if he's a member of the bar. Bruce Spencer, with the State Bar of Montana, said he doesn't believe the law would pass constitutional muster because the Montana Constitution states that the state Supreme Court regulates the practice of law. Spencer also said his organization feels that lawyers should be ethical 100% of the time, and he doesn't think it's good policy to say lawyers get a pass if they're elected. He said the State Bar believes that lawyers represent a special trusted place in our society, and their great power requires them being held to higher standards. 'I can empty your bank account if I get a judgment,' Spencer said. 'I can sell your house. I can, as a prosecuting attorney, put you away for life or the death penalty. And so the State Bar feels that lawyers should be held to a higher standard simply because we've been granted that privilege, that license to practice law.'
Yahoo
09-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
$340 million climate measure clears committee
The Senate Conservation Committee voted Saturday to recommend spending $340 million on both statewide and local sustainable energy projects. Those investments would come through a new 'Community Benefit Fund,' proposed by Senate Bill 48, with Senate Bill 49 proposing the $340 million in one-time allotments to be used between fiscal years 2026 and 2028. Both bills are being sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque; both passed committee Saturday on 5-3 party-line votes. Proposed investments include $40 million for economic development not involving fossil fuels, prioritizing industries like aerospace, biosciences, agriculture and advanced manufacturing. The bill also proposes a $100 million grant fund for large-scale electrical grid improvements and a $20 million grant for local energy projects, including weatherization. The bill also includes two provisions around transportation — $60 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure for school districts and to cover the cost difference between diesel and electric buses — and $50 million to fund projects to reduce combustion engine vehicle usage, including improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. 'Biking to reduce carbon footprint seems like a no brainer, but without safe passage to do so, driving is the only option,' said Lou Small, a student at Albuquerque Academy. 'School buses are the perfect candidate for electrification because they run the same route every single day and they charge in the middle of the day.' Jonathan Juárez with Youth United for Climate Change Action, or YUCCA, spoke in support of the bill, calling it a 'just transition for New Mexico." The proposal also includes $25 million for training programs in nonextractive industries unrelated to oil, gas, and mining. ' I am a part of an oil and gas family who needs me to bring in a second income,' said Nancy Ramirez, one of the many members of advocacy group Somos Un Pueblo Unido at Saturday's hearing. 'We advocate and are in full support of the workforce development efforts in this bill for emerging energy industries,' she continued, adding a request rural communities not be overlooked in the energy transition. In opposition to the bill, and the workforce redevelopment in particular, was Jim Winchester, executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico. Winchester called it 'problematic' to make the workforce investment 'at a time when oil and gas are our state's top employer with very good, high-paying jobs. 'We encourage this committee to let the market dictate energy choices,' he added. Bill Lee, president and CEO of Gallup-McKinley Chamber of Commerce, also spoke against the bill, citing the fund's 'likely upending' of the state's general fund, which he said could violate the state constitution's commitment to a balanced budget. Republicans who opposed the bill echoed concerns about its impact on the state's oil and gas industry. 'Do you consider it to be at all ironic that the entire $350 million is dependent on the successful petroleum industry?' asked Sen. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs. ' We have plenty of other areas of the state where we get revenues,' Stewart replied. 'What I find ironic is oil and gas standing up and saying, 'We don't want to help our communities with any money.' " Scott described a scenario. 'A Hispanic oil and gas production worker walks into the kitchen, picks up his hard hat, sits down at the kitchen table, pours himself a cup of coffee, says to his wife, 'Honey, I lost my job today — because we're coming into full compliance with the Paris Climate Accords,' " Scott said. ' There's nothing in these bills that stops us from moving forward with oil and gas,' Stewart replied. 'We just want it to be a little cleaner. Apparently so do those companies,' she said, citing companies' compliance with Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's emissions reduction targets.
