Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

SB 442 - Habitat and Access

Reached out to three reps yesterday I know, all republicans. Two responded with excitement, but both mentioned that they wouldn't be surprised this ends up back in the courts.
Governor could appeal this most recent ruling to the MT Supreme Court, and he'd get shot down pretty fast there. This is a pretty cut-and-dry issue, and I would predict the district court's ruling would be unanimously upheld. He did make a rather spurious legal argument when he vetoed the bill in the first place (basically saying it wasn't possible to fund it, even though this was passed in conjunction with another bill, which was vetoed and then the veto was overridden).

Might be worth it to reach out to the Gov's office directly and (politely) ask him to stop spending our tax dollars fighting losing legal battles.
 
Last edited:
Governor could appeal this most recent ruling to the MT Supreme Court, and he'd get shot down pretty fast there. This is a pretty cut-and-dry issue, and I would predict the district court's ruling would be unanimously upheld. He did make a rather spurious legal argument when he vetoed the bill in the first place (basically saying it wasn't possible to fund it, even though this was passed in conjunction with another bill, which to my knowledge, he did sign).

HB 868 was the companion bill that provided the statutory appropriation for SB 442. That bill had the veto overridden in June of 2023.


The use of companion bills to fund the "cats and dogs" bills that pass has been standard practice for quite a few sessions otherwise the work on HB 2 (main budget) would take 180 days instead of 90.
 
HB 868 was the companion bill that provided the statutory appropriation for SB 442. That bill had the veto overridden in June of 2023.


The use of companion bills to fund the "cats and dogs" bills that pass has been standard practice for quite a few sessions otherwise the work on HB 2 (main budget) would take 180 days instead of 90.
Thanks @Ben!
 
Inching along.

This is an excellent development. No doubt, GG has been trying to delay this to the point of mootness or until the next election (taking a leaf out of another prominent politician's book). This ruling forces the secretary of state to send the poll out.

Now he has to hustle to try and get legislators to stick with his veto, which he no doubt already has been doing. Fingers crossed he hasn't built a resistance around this.
 
The veto override is dead due to the senate leadership. Fitzpatrick is still upset over the surprise sine die motion. The override needed two-thirds of each chamber and that will not happen.

"Senate President Sen. Jason Ellsworth, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, and 26 other Republican senators — a majority of the Senate — sent their own letters to Gianforte, Jacobsen and the Supreme Court, saying these judicial decisions had severely overstepped onto the Legislature’s authority over its own procedures...Those who signed the letters said they either won’t participate in the poll or will vote not to override the veto."

 
The veto override is dead due to the senate leadership. Fitzpatrick is still upset over the surprise sine die motion. The override needed two-thirds of each chamber and that will not happen.

"Senate President Sen. Jason Ellsworth, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, and 26 other Republican senators — a majority of the Senate — sent their own letters to Gianforte, Jacobsen and the Supreme Court, saying these judicial decisions had severely overstepped onto the Legislature’s authority over its own procedures...Those who signed the letters said they either won’t participate in the poll or will vote not to override the veto."

The irony, of course, being that the judiciary is not the enemy of the legislature in this instance, but instead this falls squarely on the governor. It's the governor that violated the state constitution and violated the rights of the legislators.

Please ask your legislators to override the veto. If they don't, then please vote them out. They are putting their petty party priorities over the will of the people, which means they are not fit to hold office anymore.
 
The irony, of course, being that the judiciary is not the enemy of the legislature in this instance, but instead this falls squarely on the governor. It's the governor that violated the state constitution and violated the rights of the legislators.

Please ask your legislators to override the veto. If they don't, then please vote them out. They are putting their petty party priorities over the will of the people, which means they are not fit to hold office anymore.

Fitzpatrick's comments on the judiciary's apparent invasion of separation of powers seems a bit spurious to me. Seems to me like the judiciary is reinforcing the legislature's powers over that of the executive. But as you stated, maybe Fitzpatrick sees this as a party priority and this it is the legislature and Gianforte against the court. If I recall correctly, Fitzpatrick introduced (at least supported) numerous bills to both try to weaken the Supreme Courts current power and reshape how the court is elected and functions.
 
Last edited:
The veto override is dead due to the senate leadership. Fitzpatrick is still upset over the surprise sine die motion. The override needed two-thirds of each chamber and that will not happen.

"Senate President Sen. Jason Ellsworth, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, and 26 other Republican senators — a majority of the Senate — sent their own letters to Gianforte, Jacobsen and the Supreme Court, saying these judicial decisions had severely overstepped onto the Legislature’s authority over its own procedures...Those who signed the letters said they either won’t participate in the poll or will vote not to override the veto."

For a while I thought Fitzpatrick was a decent fellow after keeping the primaries open, but more and more his name is tied to stuff I find objectionable.
 
Fitzpatrick's comments on the judiciary's apparent invasion of separation of powers seems a bit spurious to me. Seems to me like the judiciary is reinforcing the legislature's powers over that of the executive. But as you stated, maybe in Fitzpatrick sees this as a party priority and this it is the legislature and Gianforte against the court. If I recall correctly, Fitzpatrick introduced (at least supported) numerous bills to both try to weaken the Supreme Courts current power and reshape how the court is elected and functions.
That's exactly the judiciary's job in this instance. The executive exceeded it's powers, and the judiciary is actually giving the power back where it belongs here: to the legislature.

Based on many bills and some rather partisan campaigning (in "nonpartisan" races) over the last couple election and legislative cycles, it's pretty clear that it is a party priority to either weaken the judiciary or instill their own state supreme court justices. They don't like having a judicial branch striking down the unconstitutional laws they keep trying to pass.
 
Based on many bills and some rather partisan campaigning (in "nonpartisan" races) over the last couple election and legislative cycles, it's pretty clear that it is a party priority to either weaken the judiciary or instill their own state supreme court justices. They don't like having a judicial branch striking down the unconstitutional laws they keep trying to pass.
It's a national effort by the extreme right to change the composition of the courts so they can push their agenda through. Don't get me started...
 
Heard back from a few legislators that they are getting a lot of emails on this. One mentioned that the form emails went straight to the trash bin, so if you do write in, be sure to make it a personal note rather than the form letter that groups send it. I always appreciate groups bringing attention to it but the weight the form letters carry, is minimal. Seems like we all need to make sure legislators hear from us on this as much as possible.

The bill deserves to be law, regardless of the pissing match some people want to have with the courts.
 
Got a email back from my local one. she's voting to support her original vote for 442, and she said she "promises" to vote to override our governor's veto. I just took a few minutes to make my own letter and sent it myself. I can see why all form letters would just be tossed. Good intentions or not.. just to much to fish threw being swamped
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Forum statistics

Threads
111,048
Messages
1,944,961
Members
34,990
Latest member
hotdeals
Back
Top