[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6107018,"mediaKeyId","2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85","parentId",2779087,"title","Bill to allow party labels on judicial ballots draws sharp opposition and praise","audioSeconds",5601,"startMs",6744000,"endMs",12345000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85&start=6744&end=12345","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85/thumbnail_6744000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6107018/Montana/Bill-to-allow-party-labels-on-judicial-ballots-draws-sharp-opposition-and-praise","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107018-e8c26057167a22162d266a0de88f3b09/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440222&Signature=O6Sord0IQ1WkMHn6lGNp2rOcevGPlDqCyEvEK7S9wOak~uhteIek4fh8LLKz-i81OB4wCPZnoWySpyco7yWet9IaFTb0DzCKYCuyoQqFr3aokX1OFVTWvK-3YWnadwUKMlKSEmFaH1QLFhJLpKAO0~etvt~n2DNW47UfswzsUUFSwOAbLnz3OsXwVawfUpfyb7cezrmnm-dZowan2SKUvCXwRdBIfpPcokHI2Ub5JNvlSiHu8BMDUt7wlEJ12cMORHUBUgZOgTPAkai5UKn~38sJJP-XKbWS9-6Jtq9p84hStYWHQ9Gnxn2~1iunSByC5HojWauLRegZ-cBL6k4YuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 42, which would allow judicial candidates to run with party labels in Montana, prompted a lengthy hearing with divergent testimony from public officials, legal organizations and hundreds of public witnesses.

Sponsor Sen. Daniel Emrich said the measure is “a voter‑education bill” and that partisan labels would give Montana voters “information to make an informed decision.” Lieutenant Governor Kristin Juras, speaking for the governor’s office, told the committee party affiliation is already hidden and party groups already intervene; she said partisan labels would “bring judicial candidates out of the darkness and into the light.”

Proponents included conservative groups and individuals who argued party markers are a transparent way for voters to learn judicial candidates’ viewpoints. Henry Kriegel of Americans for Prosperity said the change “leads to greater transparency and more voter information.” Several proponents pointed to other states that use partisan judicial elections.

Opponents were numerous and included the State Bar of Montana, the Montana Judges Association, the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, Friends of the Third Branch and retired delegates to the 1972 constitutional convention. State Bar and legal‑ethics witnesses warned the change would reduce public confidence in judicial impartiality, invite partisan fundraising and discourage qualified candidates.

Bruce Spencer representing the State Bar told the committee polls show sizable majorities of Montanans prefer nonpartisan judicial elections. He also cited research from partisan‑election states that partisan labels do not improve voter knowledge of qualifications. Noreen Freistadt, a former legislative and civic volunteer, said “judges should not be influenced by political contributions and partisan pressures.”

Several committee members asked whether party labels would create recusal pressure or invite venue shopping. Supporters argued judges already have personal political histories and voters can access party affiliation through public records; opponents said formalizing labels institutionalizes partisan influence.

The hearing drew many individual opponents who said partisan judicial contests would empower special interests and deepen polarization. Former constitutional convention delegates told the committee Montana deliberately adopted nonpartisan judicial elections in the 1930s and preserved nonpartisanship in 1972; they urged lawmakers to maintain the long‑standing approach.

The committee closed the hearing without taking immediate action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - Wednesday, Mar 26, 2025 07:59 - 12:23","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 42, which would allow judicial candidates to appear with party labels on Montana ballots, produced a broad hearing with the lieutenant governor and multiple legal organizations offering sharply contrasting views.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6107025,"Montana hearing draws hours of testimony on bill to define ‘male’ and ‘female’ in state law",5329,176000,5505000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85&start=176&end=5505","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85/thumbnail_176000.jpg","/articles/6107025/Montana/Montana-hearing-draws-hours-of-testimony-on-bill-to-define-male-and-female-in-state-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107025-4635366d5735bcfc22ff204f7e5f25e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440222&Signature=Y0FDx7-gL8Gx1iGHV5dvIdUdpqQVWArlp-V4VCtBGKXdHyowos9Cb1F7LqqWsV3vLMKVms61yj-n08Wy7dsL6d03TE8ovjiyYKLVOKszuk3cWkuw5heSY~IzKWKr1bkjlnzrV3V48Mvif7tPrG0BFh44UTUWP8UMTKl1YqKkTnRZXpV~sCuoXRU2nK75~p3FFSzTel87TnaGj4seYWnNyvnKN9GjTKhcfU5w7PO2zyAdl30A6yg5e9TjtSPZTx~s0SDQw9mTMlM~yUgbwvEDd~0zFWBVYBCPRRNcPK9CEIuKjEKkaFQX9stoTbhn~dpa5hTA-ZDlCsSLk~PDhFRDfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 4 37, which would add statutory definitions for terms including “male,” “female,” “man,” “woman,” “mother” and “father,” drew more than an hour of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and divided witnesses along ideological, medical and legal lines.

Sponsor Sen. Carl Glynn opened the hearing by saying the bill’s purpose is to put “definitions into Montana code,” adding the measure is aimed at ensuring “we won’t conflate those terms in Montana.”

Supporters, including legal and policy advocates, medical professionals and faith-aligned groups, told the committee the bill would provide clear, objective categories for statutory interpretation and protect privacy in places such as locker rooms and women’s sports. Jay Richards of the Heritage Foundation said, “Good definitions of male and female should capture the central concept of biological sex,” and Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom told lawmakers recent federal court decisions use biological definitions in some contexts.

Several medical witnesses testified for the bill. Board-certified pediatric endocrinologist Quentin VanMeter said sex “absolutely matters” in medical care, citing differences in growth charts and responses to hormones. VanMeter described clinical experience and historical controversy around psychologist John Money in responding to committee questions about clinical practice and outcomes.

Opponents included civil-rights groups, health-care organizations, medical societies and many Montanans who said the measure would erase or endanger transgender, intersex and Two-Spirit people. Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana said the bill “forces trans people to live a lie and deny who they are” and warned it could create safety risks and strip people of legal protections.

Medical organizations including the Montana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Montana Academy of Family Physicians told the committee the bill is based on medical oversimplifications. Dr. Jessica McDade explained that “approximately 1 percent” of people have intersex traits and described androgen insensitivity as an example of a condition a binary statutory definition could misclassify.

Multiple witnesses pointed to a prior 2023 law, Senate Bill 4 58, and court rulings. Anna Tellez, identified in the hearing as a plaintiff in Edwards v. State of Montana, read a court order saying defendants are “enjoined from directly or indirectly enforcing SB 4 58 or any law with the same effect,” and urged lawmakers not to pass a bill she said the court had found unconstitutional.

Committee members asked whether the bill’s definitions would change the application of many statutes, including the Montana Human Rights Act and criminal code provisions. Opponents argued the definitions could remove existing discrimination protections and complicate criminal prosecutions; proponents said the bill codifies objective biological meaning but acknowledged the statute would touch numerous code sections.

No formal action was taken during the hearing. The committee heard many individual testimonies and questions about medical nuance, constitutional risk, administrative impacts and whether the bill would prompt additional litigation.

Committee members and witnesses agreed the bill is likely to generate litigation if enacted; several opponents urged the committee to reject the measure to avoid further court costs and uncertainty.

The committee closed the hearing after extended public testimony and questioning.","Senate Bill 4 37, which would add statutory definitions for terms including “male,” “female,” “man,” “woman,” “mother” and “father,” drew more than an hour of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and divided witnesses along ideological, medical and legal lines.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6107012,"Committee considers bill barring government purchase of commercial location and communications data without warrant",2061,12384000,14445000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85&start=12384&end=14445","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85/thumbnail_12384000.jpg","/articles/6107012/Montana/Committee-considers-bill-barring-government-purchase-of-commercial-location-and-communications-data-without-warrant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107012-d6c64c52e192c18662d0bf9d170710f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440222&Signature=mRvqtKOgFjoypodLEJ6XzOUnPNrzDNIbtFgGhAK-z4nSD67PCpU35MTwK~LH2h1~qN~99BcQQ8jjvVv57qOpmsWAowXOC967idl77kS3SYjB8jKz8MXbYj4BnSt2jnYkNlLB4TRbQ9kLnJ-fciNRnyMTVJP5A3UTjNHK7ElpLha7JQFKLhyZ1AfQylVahy9DZ~mUYVi1iPXZjETULGQwW3Tz8QEEPQHhMbG3EspJ~G2TkoepvdAc0JjWPhSLdnrBHdIX3iZmF8VjiWVgqF8o-Y5QylxIXBl3vfXpvWFtm003o~7~pyecmGY~wyYY1D6NPAPw2GBdn4OFEXfvNJKlsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 2 82 would bar government entities from purchasing certain categories of commercially held electronic communications, precise geolocation information and pseudonymous data unless the government first obtains a search warrant or investigative subpoena.

Sponsor Sen. Daniel Emrich said the bill aims to prevent government circumvention of Fourth Amendment protections by purchasing data that can reveal individuals’ movements or communications patterns. “If there is a reason to get a warrant and you can get around that by purchasing it, you can't do it,” he said.

The ACLU of Montana rose in support, arguing that data brokers now collect and sell location and behavioral data that governments can use to track people without judicial oversight. Henry Seaton said the bill is bipartisan, protects privacy, and aligns with federal efforts to modernize Fourth Amendment protections.

Restore the Fourth, a national privacy group, supported the bill as a guardrail against warrantless access to commercial data, urging lawmakers that “if the government wants the pattern of your movements in public, they should get a warrant.”

Industry and law‑enforcement witnesses offered targeted concerns and asked for amendments. The Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association supported the bill’s core prohibitions but opposed a statutory repeal in the draft that would remove an existing emergency voluntary‑disclosure exception. The sheriffs’ association warned that a wholesale repeal could prevent rapid voluntary disclosures in crises such as kidnappings or imminent threats.

Representatives of the consumer‑data industry and TechNet asked the committee to narrow definitions in the bill so that routine government contracts that use pseudonymous or transactional data for fraud prevention, digital‑identity verification or program administration would not be unintentionally barred.

Committee members asked about emergency exceptions, use of device‑tracking in child‑safety incidents, and how the bill would affect vendor services such as fraud detection and digital identity verification. The sponsor agreed to remove the repealer provision after questions clarified its potential effects on emergencies and consent disclosures.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the committee closed testimony after proponents, opponents and informational witnesses presented.","Senate Bill 282 would prohibit state and local governments from acquiring certain commercial location, communications and pseudonymous data without a warrant or investigative subpoena; civil‑liberties groups backed the measure and law‑enforcement and industry witnesses sought narrowly tailored exceptions.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6107022,"Representative seeks interim study to simplify Montana Youth Court Act",3341,3350000,6691000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85&start=3350&end=6691","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779087-35ba31b65650bff3f1396700d02a4e85/thumbnail_3350000.jpg","/articles/6107022/Montana/Representative-seeks-interim-study-to-simplify-Montana-Youth-Court-Act","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107022-ff3c1c79a8b5c91fdadd6f8913368bee/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440222&Signature=TYvsQjz6yRcHfGCvlCF6SXYUdlEfn~p~acZE5~EHy-bWYX~2IpisWt7HlLxJJjRYsDVinTzGj9IvU-5t8Pu~n1EaInxL35VqXAPOZSRRp07boTAXaq8dGCFnAc2a1IiXGXVpZKVLthy9SiS5W24xiQ1wzPZpp1spiSQI8gxZkkWkh~QEL0LD~OrrqkDxpndbUaO0~m~QX5zQJuCc35p7sKaaaEIJvRedyA2aGZgNTamkdMRgmUUNM3Ohyl1RQ586Z5U7DcbPEqRjcLoDPLAzQdsRMIYm6xVqG4UMZoNwobpcoWH9C9I5E9~vRkPoeJ2rGqzFXNOuUrB5JiedplAKHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative James Reavis opened a hearing on House Joint Resolution 23, asking that the Legislature authorize an interim study to review and simplify the Montana Youth Court Act.

Reavis, who said he worked in public defense for more than a decade, told the committee the current juvenile code has been amended repeatedly since 1947 and “is very complicated,” creating procedural confusion for attorneys, families and judges.

Proponents included experienced juvenile defense counsel Michelle Lyday, who said the Act’s accumulation of “band‑aid fixes” has left lawyers and families unsure what will happen in court, and Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana, who told the committee streamlining the code would improve fairness, reduce delays and strengthen public trust.

Nicole Gomez of Catalyst Montana and other child-justice advocates urged a study to improve predictability for dispositions such as consent decrees, transfers, commitments and extended jurisdiction juveniles.

Representatives on the committee asked clarifying questions about which stakeholders should participate. Reavis said the study should include judges, county attorneys, public defenders, youth probation officers, the Department of Public Health and Human Services and the Department of Corrections.

Witnesses and the sponsor said the study is procedural rather than a request to change punishment levels; it would be an interim effort to consider simplifying statutory cross‑references, clarifying transfer rules and ensuring consistent application across counties.

No formal committee action occurred; the committee closed the hearing after proponents and informational witnesses testified.","House Joint Resolution 23 asks for an interim study to review and streamline the Montana Youth Court Act; sponsors and juvenile justice stakeholders said complex, layered statutes create inconsistent outcomes and longer appeals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to allow party labels on judicial ballots draws sharp opposition and praise

Montana hearing draws hours of testimony on bill to define ‘male’ and ‘female’ in state law

Committee considers bill barring government purchase of commercial location and communications data without warrant

Representative seeks interim study to simplify Montana Youth Court Act