Interim study on bolstering public participation in the session/legislature
House Joint Resolution 38 requests an interim study on public participation in the Montana legislative process. The study would be assigned by the Legislative Council to an appropriate interim or statutory committee and would examine how the Legislature’s website and bill-tracking tools are working, with particular attention to accessibility, functionality, and differences between the old and new systems. It also directs the committee to look at how public comments and constituent messages are handled, how other legislative bodies manage public input, and how duplicate comments are tracked.
The resolution further asks for a review of public testimony procedures across committees, discrepancies among legislative scheduling and tracking tools, and ways to improve public access, involvement, and understanding of the process. A specific focus is placed on reducing barriers for Montanans with disabilities and ensuring reasonable accommodations for both online and in-person participation. The committee is encouraged to gather broad feedback from the public, legislators, staff, lobbyists, and disability rights stakeholders, and to complete the study by September 15, 2026, with findings reported to the 70th Legislature.
HJ 38 would not change substantive law or create new regulatory requirements; instead, it directs a legislative study under section 5-5-217, MCA. Its practical effect would be to authorize an interim review of legislative operations, public engagement tools, and accessibility practices, potentially leading to future recommendations for changes to the Legislature’s website, bill-tracking systems, testimony procedures, and accommodation policies. The resolution affects the Legislative Council, an interim committee or statutory committee, and stakeholders who participate in or interact with the legislative process, especially people with disabilities and members of the public using online participation tools.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in the House, where it advanced with strong support on committee and floor votes. The resolution’s purpose—improving access, transparency, and usability of legislative participation tools—suggests broad bipartisan appeal, particularly around modernization and accessibility. In the Senate, however, the measure ultimately died in standing committee, indicating that support was not sufficient to move it forward despite the earlier House approval.
The main points of contention appear to center on the scope and necessity of the study, especially given concerns about the Legislature’s new website redesign, bill-tracking functionality, and the handling of public comments. Some of the study’s focus areas—such as duplicate comments, differences among committee testimony procedures, and discrepancies among multiple tracking tools—suggest operational frustrations that may have prompted debate about whether a study was the best response. Another likely area of concern is the extent of the requested review and whether it would impose additional administrative work on staff and committees, even though the resolution itself is nonbinding and only asks for recommendations.