Requiring the Supreme Court to apply a burden of proof for challenge to constitutionality of legislative act
Summary
HB 30 would change Montana law governing how courts evaluate constitutional challenges to legislative acts. The bill amends MCA 3-2-701 to state that, unless the state constitution expressly requires a different standard, the Montana Supreme Court must uphold a legislative act unless the challenger proves the law is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. In effect, it would impose a very high burden of proof on anyone asking a court to strike down a statute passed by the Legislature.
The bill also makes a small wording change to the existing statute describing the Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority over pleading, practice, and procedure in civil cases, but the central policy change is the new constitutional-review standard. If enacted, the measure would strengthen the presumption of validity for legislative enactments and make it harder for courts to invalidate state laws on constitutional grounds.
Impact
HB 30 would directly affect judicial review in Montana by codifying a heightened burden of proof for constitutional challenges to state legislative acts. It would alter the standard applied by the Montana Supreme Court and other Montana courts when a party argues that a statute violates the state constitution, except where the constitution itself sets a different standard. The practical effect would be to favor the Legislature’s enactments and make constitutional litigation against state laws more difficult for challengers, including individuals, advocacy groups, and other parties seeking judicial relief.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been supported by a majority in the House and initially received favorable committee action, but it also faced significant opposition and ultimately did not advance in the Senate. House votes were close on the floor, including an initial failure on second reading followed by reconsideration and eventual passage, indicating a divided chamber. In the Senate, the bill advanced through Judiciary but then stalled, with a tied concurrence motion and a later vote to indefinitely postpone it, reflecting substantial concern or disagreement among senators.
Contention
The main point of contention is the constitutional standard itself: supporters likely viewed the bill as reinforcing deference to the Legislature and protecting enacted laws, while opponents likely saw it as making it too difficult to challenge unconstitutional statutes and potentially shifting power away from the judiciary. The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is especially significant because it is a very demanding burden typically associated with criminal law, and critics may have objected to applying such a stringent standard in constitutional civil litigation. The close House votes and the Senate’s split action suggest the issue was politically and legally divisive.