Confirm governor's appointees for the commission for human rights
Summary
SR 24 is a Senate resolution confirming three gubernatorial appointments to the Montana Commission for Human Rights. The resolution concurs in, confirms, and consents to the appointments of Curtis Almy of Miles City, Peter Damrow of Frenchtown, and Connie Sartain of Kalispell, each for terms ending January 2, 2029. It also directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit the resolution to the Secretary of State and the Governor as required by Montana law.
This measure does not create new policy or amend substantive law; instead, it carries out the Senate’s constitutional and statutory role in advising and consenting to executive appointments. Its practical effect is to fill or continue membership on the Commission for Human Rights, the state body responsible for matters related to human rights enforcement and oversight under Montana law.
Impact
SR 24 affects the composition of the Montana Commission for Human Rights by confirming three members to serve fixed terms. It does not change the text of the Montana Code Annotated, but it implements existing appointment procedures under sections 5-5-302, 5-5-303, and 2-15-1706, MCA. The resolution therefore impacts the administration of the commission and, indirectly, the state’s human rights oversight and complaint-handling functions.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received positively and without controversy. It passed the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs committee unanimously 11-0 and was then adopted by the full Senate 49-0. The absence of recorded opposition or committee discussion suggests broad bipartisan agreement on the appointments and on the importance of maintaining a functioning Commission for Human Rights.
Contention
No notable points of contention are reflected in the available record. There were no committee transcripts, no recorded dissenting votes, and the resolution was adopted unanimously at both the committee and floor levels. Because the measure concerns confirmation of appointees rather than policy change, any potential disagreement would likely have centered on the qualifications or perspectives of the nominees, but no such concerns are documented here.