[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,76,88,99],{"_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",6100406,"mediaKeyId","2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5","parentId",2813606,"title","Votes at a glance: House floor actions and recorded tallies from March proceedings","audioSeconds",3169,"startMs",495000,"endMs",3664000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5&start=495&end=3664","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5/thumbnail_495000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6100406/Montana/Votes-at-a-glance-House-floor-actions-and-recorded-tallies-from-March-proceedings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100406-76ab86b05791fe0ee7f0dbe28b6f99c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145039&Signature=iYLmYqAhJrBTQVNm-PmSBiWbMfrhYv4NZO57ENahQnymrXflVY-7rKhPPeoJvY07oeIoM8ggJW6qNDozVYh5L537HjPobLTXFt70pLaMBCJztNwNtSSygQMtD1LldgTPwueXw0tsdAXaYCN3FUx7wzX2mUuqlI~COg0dq2PGHMAixW02OWYzhG0JaQiJJ3CM7AFoQCyZooaXnyaSuV9MmQeo3SHapRROGM2-j3TlZjWXr8DkMD-5O6awyC53AnKX~5W-8u1Q1u-G0YTf6Wb4~bsaT1sMEB6tNJsz8tyDL7-5NSrhU8kZR8zfK6EuMpvIlXWzCuvvwWfx8d32Fc5IPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-28T00:00:00Z","article","This summary lists bills and recorded House-floor outcomes taken during the session segment in the transcript. Tallies and outcomes are reproduced as recorded in the House proceeding.

- House Bill 808 (creating the Montana Brownfields program): Passed — 60 aye, 39 no.
- House Bill 329 (Make the Montana Ammunition Act Permanent): Passed — 51 aye, 48 no.
- House Joint Resolution 20 (regarding funding for Montana‑Canada customs ports of entry): Passed — 97 aye, 2 no.
- Senate Bill 426 (revised the Uniform Commercial Code; listed in transcript as Senate Bill 4 26): Passed — 87 aye, 12 no.
- Senate Bill 15 (revising grounds for impeachment): Failed — 39 aye, 60 no.
- Senate Bill 134 (revising laws related to gifts and endowments): Passed — 81 aye, 18 no.
- Senate Bill 190 (water rights holders consenting to waive adverse effects analysis): Passed — 95 aye, 4 no.
- Senate Bill 248 (legislators' votes related bill as read): Passed — 61 aye, 38 no.
- Senate Bill 249 (revised child abuse and neglect laws involving adjudication): Passed — 61 aye, 38 no.
- Senate Bill 305 (revised funeral trust laws): Passed — 98 aye, 1 no.
- Senate Bill 166 (digital copies for transported livestock documents / CPA education revision items in same block): Passed — 99 aye, 0 no.
- Senate Bill 228 (public charging‑station law; recorded as Senate Bill 2 28 in transcript): Passed — 90 aye, 9 no.
- Senate Bill 34 (clarifying K–12 school district laws): Passed — 99 aye, 0 no.
- Senate Bill 143 (statute‑of‑limitations civil liability changes): Passed — 58 aye, 41 no.
- Senate Bill 212 (right to compute act / AI shutdowns language): Passed — 61 aye, 38 no.
- Senate Bill 279 (dietitian licensure compact): Passed — 95 aye, 4 no.
- House Bill 88 (concurrence): Concurred in — 100 aye (committee report adopted on concurrence vote).
- Senate Bill 165 (trail enhancement fee for snowmobile rentals): Concurred in — 100 aye.
- Senate Bill 161 (aquaculture regulation): Concurred in — 99 aye, 1 no.
- Senate Bill 35 (school funding cleanup): Concurred in — 100 aye.
- Senate Bill 36 (school funding expired language removal): Concurred in — 100 aye.
- Senate Bill 129 (allow electors to add a political party on registration): Not concurred — 48 aye, 52 no.
- Senate Bill 21 (vacate mandamus pleading): Not concurred — 40 aye, 60 no.
- Senate Bill 115 (adjust public‑notice timeframe for elections): Concurred in — recorded as passed in committee report.
- Senate Bill 83 (Fish, Wildlife and Parks block management enforcement rules): Concurred in — 99 aye, 1 no.
- Senate Bill 111 (green lights for snow removal): Concurred in — 100 aye.
- Senate Bill 79 (feedlot dead animal inspection repeal): Concurred in — 100 aye.

Notes: This list reproduces the tallies as read on the House floor in the transcript provided. Several bills were considered in committee and on second reading and were either concurred in by the House or the House recorded not‑concur actions for some Senate measures. For some contested items, the transcript reports only the final tally by count rather than a roll‑call list of individual names. For measures without detailed debate in the provided excerpt, the transcript gave vote counts but not extended floor discussion.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session - Friday, Mar 28, 2025 12:59 - 15:45","oneSentenceSummary","The House recorded multiple floor votes on Senate and House measures during the session. Below are vote outcomes as recorded on the House floor in the provided transcript.","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},6100411,"House declines to concur in bill allowing executive and legislative leaders to vacate writs of mandamus",1126,4550000,5676000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5&start=4550&end=5676","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5/thumbnail_4550000.jpg","/articles/6100411/Montana/House-declines-to-concur-in-bill-allowing-executive-and-legislative-leaders-to-vacate-writs-of-mandamus","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100411-cf1d422740aba72b13e8c17557076542/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145039&Signature=Bn61kzRNex16vKXUb2AWH17gRum2Js5CHSJ9v4c3Q187RFfh1-AP6de77-pLTTKNbMJQbOhS95wisSkY-cAyTNQjN1DgUNmLG1JtuG1xsQhaFPo9NhfQdMdxjm~WGRDjcjJce9URj9AmYoHoaTON9bf6k8VnpNMJu4HxbKekD3JuzTnlNeO~B5hKQNvjgHGdHjjU76Sl00VN4anlz5C8mZgfSPjeOFsFwxqLdF-Ye2S~zzvf3qo2-uEF2yN8-1Xw01dQqTWI23g-Wkqoak3ROvp~SMAG9JhvYRQXi6cFZsykpCCwMGCAAwIL2fsZEtlzYfIBsOrsWOUjpRDBnWgJcA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 21, introduced in the Senate and carried to the House, would create a statutory procedure allowing certain combinations of executive and legislative leaders to file a pleading to vacate a writ of mandamus issued by a court. The sponsor framed the bill as a narrow check to correct what proponents described as a judicial error in an extraordinary 2023 case.

Representative Millett (bill mover on the House floor) explained the mechanism: if a writ of mandamus is issued and an executive officer determines the writ was invalid or unconstitutional, the executive officer could prepare a pleading to vacate the writ and obtain a signature from the presiding officer of either legislative chamber (the speaker or senate president). The pleading then would be filed with the court, and the statute would bar enforcement of a vacated writ and protect officials from contempt for noncompliance with a vacated writ.

Supporters said the measure sets a high bar — requiring signatures from constitutional officials — and would be used rarely to avert constitutional crises. “The judicial branch is made up of people and all people, even judges, can be wrong,” a sponsor said.

Opponents, including Representative Overstreet and others, said the bill would allow political officials to override clear judicial orders in ministerial matters and risked undermining the rule of law. Overstreet described examples — certification of initiative petitions and enrollment signatures — where a court might issue a mandamus to compel a ministerial act; under the bill, two political officials could effectively nullify the court order and the obligation to comply. Critics also cited a legal note prepared for lawmakers that flagged potential separation‑of‑powers concerns.

After extended floor debate about separation of powers and accountability, the House recorded 40 votes in favor and 60 opposed; Senate Bill 21 was not concurred in by the House.

The debate focused on constitutional questions about judicial review and separation of powers, the high‑profile 2023 mandamus case that prompted the measure, and whether the legislature may sensibly limit or modify statutory writ procedures given constitutional constraints.","The House debated a bill that would permit a governor or attorney general together with a legislative presiding officer to file to vacate a court's writ of mandamus; critics warned it could erode the rule of law. The House did not concur on the measure, 40–60.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":46,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100416,"House deadlocks on pilot to require state health plan cover GLP-1 weight-loss drugs; vote ties 50-50",1722,1942000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5&start=1942&end=3664","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5/thumbnail_1942000.jpg","/articles/6100416/Montana/House-deadlocks-on-pilot-to-require-state-health-plan-cover-GLP-1-weight-loss-drugs-vote-ties-50-50","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100416-2b0fe3d596c813ddde44c879e451799f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145039&Signature=mp-ql7SZ5Sr2MbJaphFJTu3SNKhoSHC8ZrfpKBLpn77M0GwNWwJ254E45e1k~3aDIibzu2j2O-kOp63f1PoWDb2R7D2-3b0dl7~~8oBAr6s1t6MGPxs4FhLptle-QEptFhfDr7FUu50A2ZIPAJYjkINb1DgRTacSp~iePIwruMJ2hpuchWWgemCpSTqReUV0SNVbS2ajAqDAJWlRVHdwzPrwUFD~mt4~aWFD4ZESSZsv7cOJKU6Tmx~5PnVlsvdPMPKkChNVd0U7lrnCJZhe1xXzY~5MG5rCndT1xgINOud2s3ZA9MUy1GAZV4TIHYH~bJ~bQEsRE~L3013-tDH~Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Rosenzweig sponsored House Bill 783, which would require the state employee health plan to cover medically necessary glucagon‑like peptide‑1 (GLP‑1) receptor agonists for people with class‑3 obesity (body mass index of 40 or higher) and for polycystic ovary syndrome when medically necessary.

Rosenzweig said the bill is a narrowly targeted, two‑year pilot limited to state employees and noted that 13 other states have adopted similar mandates for certain conditions. “This bill addresses the time period between being dangerous prediabetic and becoming fully diabetic by requiring that insurers cover the cost of the drugs when prescribed by a doctor for patients with significant type 3 obesity risks or polycystic ovarian syndrome,” Rosenzweig said.

Proponents argued the drugs can be effective at reducing long‑term health costs by preventing diabetes and other complications; supporters cited studies that estimate annual medical‑cost savings between $1,500 and $8,000 per treated person depending on comorbidities and the study cited. The bill includes an appropriation line in the draft (sponsor and committee members cited a $1.5 million per year figure for initial implementation in the state plan) and requires a two‑year review of utilization and cost effectiveness.

Opponents pressed on short‑term costs and side effects. Representative Perry, who said he had personal experience taking Ozempic, described effectiveness but noted gastrointestinal side effects and the current retail cost of the drugs. Majority Leader Fitzpatrick and others argued that mandated coverage would raise overall insurance costs and create a new benefit for state employees that other Montanans would not receive.

Lawmakers also questioned the fiscal-note assumptions and utilization projections. Sponsors said the original fiscal note had been drafted under a broader version of the bill and that committee amendments narrowed coverage to reduce long‑term fiscal exposures; the sponsor and others said the revised appropriation request for the two‑year pilot was about $1.5 million for the first year and about $1.2 million for the second year for the internal state plan.

At final call, the House recorded a tie: 50 representatives voted aye and 50 voted no. Because the measure did not gain a majority, House Bill 783 failed second reading.

The transcript records extended debate spanning clinical questions, concerns about long‑term side effects and liability, and several requests for reporting and utilization limits. The bill would have applied only to the state employee plan as written in the version considered on the floor.","Lawmakers split evenly on a two‑year pilot to require the state employee health plan to cover certain GLP-1 drugs for class‑3 obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome; the bill failed on second reading after a 50–50 tie, following extended debate over costs, side effects and utilization estimates.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100420,"House debates property tax-deferral loan for older homeowners; sponsor asks Appropriations review",5509,1121000,6630000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5&start=1121&end=6630","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813606-7bf31ca32e2fcc57c4898ad1098b17e5/thumbnail_1121000.jpg","/articles/6100420/Montana/House-debates-property-tax-deferral-loan-for-older-homeowners-sponsor-asks-Appropriations-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100420-86544ebcff5a255dd10153475c55fcad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145039&Signature=Z4rBDK8i8kJfuu6f2mrzj-R~9nX4dv82g6wNETf~jESNWl8NNWo5rnPRaIGxkOU~ywtzfb4662RNz2PmjTUEDEzBn7~jFOlJ7OdPr2WcfI2UHE4UUTXdxX9pYZlMa0ASu7KxCPvyGoYMq9YAKheJmwQv3MFuHYE1UyjtH7EMO0vZzaK9i~kpEeINtuWBOw9hFhfUAwp-~b1nuix3zaE~0mkPtoF9x-VZA2Qk5lNuE9lY88bq9nR4CUQa4ZkuLDj7cIPcvuAL5nQ8Pq6-~HsM64IUat0xt1mXB34fsnrNHfjWL2uAf57YGIj7EzN-scnHgJKXvQqiL7ptEv6~8~ojXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Rosenzweig, the bill sponsor, introduced House Bill 836 on the House floor as a program to let certain older Montanans defer property-tax increases by taking a state-backed loan secured by a lien on the home.

Rosenzweig said the program would be targeted to borrowers age 62 or older who have lived in their homes at least five years, that the loan would be payable on sale or from an estate, and that spouses could remain in the home under the same loan terms. “This is a state sponsored line of credit at 5% simple interest that will keep seniors in their home,” Rosenzweig said. She described the design as a lien-based loan rather than a tax forgiveness program and said the Board of Housing and other state agencies stand ready to implement it.

The sponsor told lawmakers the program would allow borrowers to reset their base property-tax amount to their 2022 level if they choose, and walked legislators through an example showing how a loan balance might accrue over ten years in a rising market. Rosenzweig said personnel operating costs were estimated in the fiscal note at roughly $244,000 per year for personal services and that an internal estimate of roughly $1.5 million per year would cover expected program costs during initial years.

Lawmakers pressed the sponsor on program scope and cost. Representatives asked whether home appreciation would continue to accumulate as owner equity (Rosenzweig: “Absolutely. Yes.”) and sought clarity about the fiscal-note assumptions, take-up rates, and whether the program would shift local tax burdens. Rosenzweig and committee discussion participants said the bill is intended as a loan program with liens, not a general tax credit, and said the Board of Housing’s income and purchase-price limits would determine eligibility.

On the House floor later in the day, Majority Leader Fitzpatrick moved to re-refer House Bill 836 to the Appropriations Committee for further review and funding-level adjustments; the motion was adopted without objection.

The bill as presented would require writing administrative rules and a small operations team to administer applications, servicing and lien recording; Rosenzweig asked the House to send the bill to Appropriations to set the appropriation and review the fiscal note in detail.

Votes and next steps: The House re-referred House Bill 836 to the Appropriations Committee; that procedural motion passed without objection, which sends the bill out of the chamber to a committee that will evaluate funding and oversight details.","Lawmakers heard a detailed proposal to allow eligible Montana seniors to defer property-tax increases through a state-backed loan; sponsor said the program is designed as a lien-based, repay-on-sale loan with administrative costs and an appropriation request. The bill was sent to the Appropriations Committee.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: House floor actions and recorded tallies from March proceedings

House declines to concur in bill allowing executive and legislative leaders to vacate writs of mandamus

House deadlocks on pilot to require state health plan cover GLP-1 weight-loss drugs; vote ties 50-50

House debates property tax-deferral loan for older homeowners; sponsor asks Appropriations review