Interim study resolution on the legislature's ethics processes
SJ 28 is a joint resolution directing the Montana Legislative Council to conduct an interim study of ethics. The study is intended to examine how ethics issues should be handled within legislative procedure, including the development of a process for adjudicating ethics complaints, and to identify where the Legislature’s authority overlaps with or differs from the Commissioner of Political Practices. It also asks the council to consider whether revisions to the state code of ethics and legislative rules are needed.
The resolution is a study measure rather than a substantive change to the ethics code itself. It requires the study to be completed by September 15, 2026, and directs that the final findings, conclusions, comments, and recommendations be reported to the rules committees of the 70th Legislature and to the full 70th Legislature. The bill is grounded in the Montana Constitution’s ethics mandate and references existing statutory and internal legislative ethics rules.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive, with the resolution advancing through both chambers by comfortable margins. It passed Senate committee unanimously and cleared floor votes in both chambers, though not without some opposition on final passage, especially in the House. The vote pattern suggests broad agreement that ethics procedures merit review, even if there was not unanimous support for the study.
The main point of contention is not whether ethics should be studied, but how ethics enforcement should be structured and who should have authority in different situations. The bill specifically highlights the Commissioner of Political Practices’ limited jurisdiction when a complaint involves a legislative act, implying concern about gaps or ambiguity in current enforcement. That issue, along with possible revisions to legislative rules and the code of ethics, is likely to be the focus of debate during the interim study.
SJ 28 does not directly amend Montana statutes, but it initiates an interim legislative study that could lead to future changes in Title 2, chapter 2, part 1, MCA, and in the Legislature’s joint, Senate, and House rules governing ethics. It also directs the Legislative Council to evaluate the relationship between legislative ethics enforcement and the Commissioner of Political Practices, potentially informing future reforms to complaint procedures, jurisdiction, and adjudication standards.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support as a process-oriented ethics review, reflected in unanimous committee adoption and strong majority floor votes in both chambers. At the same time, the non-unanimous floor margins indicate some reservations, likely tied to concerns about legislative self-policing, the scope of the study, or how ethics authority should be allocated between the Legislature and the Commissioner of Political Practices.
The central contention concerns ethics enforcement authority: whether the Legislature should create its own adjudication process, how much authority should remain with the Commissioner of Political Practices, and where current law leaves gaps or overlaps. Another likely point of debate is whether revising the code of ethics and legislative rules could strengthen accountability or instead risk insulating legislators from outside oversight. Supporters seem focused on clarifying procedures after recent ethics issues during the session, while skeptics may be wary of any process that appears to shift enforcement inward.