HB 840 would create a temporary legislative committee to investigate the independence and performance of Montana district court judges and Supreme Court justices. The committee would be made up of nine legislators, with five appointed by the House speaker and four by the Senate president, and would be authorized to establish standards for evaluating the sufficiency of judicial rulings and to disseminate its findings publicly. The committee could also contract for outside assistance, and the Legislative Services Division would provide staff support.
The bill includes a general fund appropriation of $400,000 for investigative work and $73,000 for member reimbursements for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, with authority for those appropriations to continue into the next biennium. It would take effect July 1, 2025, and terminate December 31, 2028. The bill also contains contingent voidness language: if the required appropriation is not included or is vetoed without override, the act becomes void.
Impact
HB 840 would not directly amend substantive judicial statutes, but it would create a new legislative oversight structure aimed at reviewing the judiciary and publicly reporting on judicial independence and rulings. It would authorize legislative spending from the general fund, require staffing support from the Legislative Services Division, and allow the committee to hire outside contractors. The bill could affect judges and justices indirectly by subjecting their decisions and independence to legislative evaluation and public dissemination, but it does not create disciplinary authority or change court procedures in the text provided.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been controversial and ultimately unsuccessful. It received initial support in the House Judiciary Committee, where it passed 12-8, but then failed on the House floor after a failed amendment motion and a 39-60 vote on second reading. The final status indicates it died in process, suggesting that support was not sufficient to advance the measure through the chamber.
Contention
The main point of contention is the proposal to have legislators investigate and evaluate the independence and quality of rulings by district court judges and Supreme Court justices. Supporters likely viewed the committee as a transparency or accountability measure, while opponents likely saw it as legislative intrusion into the judicial branch and a threat to separation of powers and judicial independence. The bill’s authority to set standards for evaluating rulings and broadly disseminate findings likely heightened concerns about politicizing judicial review.