Connect with us

Montana

Panel fears Montana’s constitutional rights are in peril

Published

on

Panel fears Montana’s constitutional rights are in peril


A former state supreme court docket justice warned that if Republicans get a supermajority within the Montana Legislature within the 2022 election, and he thinks they may, it might pose a critical menace to the state structure.

James Nelson’s feedback got here as a part of a four-member panel dialogue on Montana’s constitutional proper of privateness throughout a webinar Monday sponsored by the Montana League of Ladies Voters of the Helena Space and Lewis & Clark Library.

The panel additionally included former Supreme Courtroom Justice Patricia Cotter; Raph Graybill, the previous authorized counsel to then-Gov. Steve Bullock; and Mae Nan Ellingson, an legal professional who was among the many delegates on the 1972 constitutional conference.

A supermajority consists of two-thirds of the complete Legislature and would permit a unified celebration to position proposed adjustments to the Montana Structure on the poll. Some worry Republicans will attempt to make adjustments to components of the state structure, akin to the proper to privateness.

Advertisement

Persons are additionally studying…

Nelson mentioned the Legislature might name for a restricted constitutional conference and place gadgets on the poll for individuals to vote on or place a referendum to revise parts of the structure.

Advertisement

He mentioned all these protections can be on the chopping block and “up for grabs.”

“For these of you who’ve seen ‘Shark Week,’ suppose feeding frenzy,” Nelson mentioned.

He mentioned rights can be jeopardized in an effort to make the Legislature probably the most highly effective department of presidency. These rights embody the proper to a clear and healthful setting, a proper to dignity, a proper to taking part in authorities and a proper to reproductive autonomy. 

In 1999, Nelson authored a state supreme court docket ruling in Armstrong vs. Montana, that the privateness provisions in Montana’s Structure guarantee girls can entry pre-viability abortions.

The panel spoke by a lot of the hourlong dialogue about threats to the privateness provision, which states: “The appropriate of particular person privateness is important to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed with out the displaying of a compelling state curiosity.”

Advertisement

Ellingson mentioned the supply was among the many least debated throughout the 1972 constitutional conference.

“How fortunate we’re in Montana to have a robust declaration of rights as we do, significantly the proper of privateness … and residents should not on the mercy of the ever-changing supreme court docket to abolish the notion of (abiding by earlier court docket selections),” she mentioned.

Cotter mentioned a proper to privateness is a elementary proper of Montana legislation.

She mentioned assaults have been made on privateness because the final legislative session.

Cotter mentioned privateness is solely a person proper designed to guard individuals from an overbearing authorities and extends to many sides of an individual’s life, together with the proper to make their very own medical judgment.

Advertisement

Graybill mentioned the Republicans successful the governor’s race and retaining majority management of the Legislature unleashed a slew of legal guidelines legislators wished handed for a while.

Graybill, authorized counsel for Deliberate Parenthood in Montana, mentioned there are a sequence of challenges coping with the extent the Legislature can regulate entry to abortion in Montana. He mentioned Deliberate Parenthood is difficult 4 legal guidelines handed by GOP lawmakers.

One legislation bans abortion after 20 weeks, one other locations restrictions on remedy abortion, one other requires suppliers to offer an ultrasound picture to somebody looking for an abortion and one bans sure sorts of insurance coverage protection.

Graybill mentioned he has gotten preliminary injunctions from the courts to pause the legal guidelines from going into impact.

He mentioned the state has determined to attraction and has requested the court docket to overrule the Armstrong case. The state supreme court docket has agreed the circumstances ought to stay paused.

Advertisement

Cotter mentioned she is anxious by makes an attempt to politicize the Montana Supreme Courtroom and have justices elected by districts and make it regional.

“I don’t like the thought of politicizing the court docket or the thought of how individuals are elected to the court docket,” she mentioned.

Cotter mentioned the Legislature appears intent on taking away privateness rights and “having management over our private medical selections.”

She mentioned if a few of these rights are taken away, Montana will return to the “good outdated days” of repression and persecution.

Ellingson mentioned nearly all of the bulk celebration of the Legislature appears to need no limitations over what they will do.

Advertisement

“I feel there’s a primary unwillingness to just accept the structure and one thing that controls the legislators’ potential to behave,” she mentioned.

Ellingson mentioned she has been instructed that some legislators have been instructed payments they wish to introduce are unconstitutional, and so they introduce them anyway.

“They don’t just like the notion the structure limits them,” she mentioned. “And so they don’t just like the courts decoding the structure, which is what the court docket’s job is.”

Nelson urged individuals watching the webinar to face up and defend the structure.

“Democracy just isn’t a spectator sport,” he mentioned. “Each one in all us should do our half. We’ve bought to vote, we’ve to help candidates that help our imaginative and prescient of the structure.”

Advertisement

He mentioned individuals want to talk up for the structure.

“If we don’t struggle for the structure and our rights, then we’ll lose it,” he mentioned.

Watch the webinar on HCTV at https://www.helenacivictv.org/on-demand/4033.

Assistant editor Phil Drake could be reached at 406-231-9021.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Montana lawmakers looking at possible future marijuana dispensary regulations

Published

on

Montana lawmakers looking at possible future marijuana dispensary regulations


HELENA — Since the launch of Montana’s adult-use recreational marijuana system in 2022, the state has put limits on who can enter the market. Now, state lawmakers are looking at possibly extending the limits, but in a much different form.

Earlier this month, the Montana Legislature’s Economic Affairs Interim Committee held a preliminary discussion on several marijuana-related bills that could be proposed for the 2025 session. One would freeze the number of marijuana dispensaries and other facilities for two years.

Since the start of legal sales, Montana has had a moratorium, allowing only providers who had been licensed in the state’s medical marijuana system to join the recreational market. It was initially set to expire June 30, 2023, but the Legislature voted last year to extend it two more years.

While the number of licensees was limited, those providers were allowed to open additional “licensed premises,” including dispensaries. The proposed legislation – still in a very early form and subject to change – would prevent any business from adding a new licensed premise between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2027.

Advertisement

“This time, we’re talking about a freeze on all cannabis-related business location licensing, so no new growers, no new kitchens, no new storage facilities, no new dispensaries – they’re the part the public are really going to notice,” said Pepper Petersen, president and CEO of the Montana Cannabis Guild.

The committee referred to the proposal as an extension of the moratorium, but marijuana industry representatives said it’s essentially an entirely new policy, because it would remove the requirement that licensees be former medical providers. That would allow licensees to sell or transfer their businesses to new owners who haven’t previously been in the system.

Petersen said people in the industry understand that many Montanans feel there are enough – or too many – dispensaries in the state. He believes local governments should be taking more active steps to limit the growth of dispensaries through zoning or other regulations.

“We’ve suggested to local governments for two years or more now that they put a number of restrictions on when, where and how dispensaries can open,” he said.

Local governments like Cascade County have looked at ways to regulate marijuana businesses. Next month, the city of Missoula is set to hold a public hearing on a proposal to pause issuing business licenses for new dispensaries.

Advertisement

“When Missoula, Montana, one of the most liberal cities in the state – one of the most marijuana-friendly cities in the country – has said we’ve got too many dispensaries, that reverberates through the state Legislature,” Petersen said.

During the committee meeting, lawmakers also talked about putting together a bill draft to clarify what authority local governments have to put regulations on marijuana businesses. In addition, they looked at a “cleanup” bill to make some technical changes to marijuana laws, as well as a proposed resolution to support the federal SAFER Banking Act, which would allow legal marijuana businesses to access banking services. The committee is set to take a closer look at all of the proposals, including potential amendments, at a meeting in August.





Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana judge deems defining sex in terms of only male or female unconstitutional – Washington Examiner

Published

on

Montana judge deems defining sex in terms of only male or female unconstitutional – Washington Examiner


A Montana judge deemed a law defining sex in terms of only male or female to be in violation of the state’s constitution since the legislation’s description did not clearly state its purpose. 

Members of the LGBT community filed a lawsuit against the bill, which was passed last year, claiming it denied legal protections to people who did not fit into either male or female. 

District Court Judge Shane Vannatta in Missoula struck down the bill — but not on the grounds that it ignored the protections of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Rather, she said it was unclear if the bill’s title was referring to “sex” as either sexual intercourse or gender. In addition, Vannatta stated that the bill’s title failed to indicate the words “female” and “male” in the bill’s body. 

“The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles,” Vannatta wrote.

Advertisement

Sen. Carl Glimm (R-MT) sponsored the legislation in response to a 2022 court ruling in which a state judge said transgender people could change the gender listed on their birth certificates.

The bill looked to “provide a common definition for the word sex when referring to a human,” the text reads. 

Sedan Southard, spokesman for Gov. Greg Gianforte (R-MT), told the Associated Press the governor stands by the law which legally defines what has always been the understanding of what a male and female are.

“Words matter. And this administration is committed to ensuring words have meaning, unlike this judge, who apparently needs a dictionary to discern the difference between a noun and a verb,” Southard said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is an important vindication of the safeguards that the Montana Constitution places on legislative enactments,” Alex Rate, the group’s legal director, told the outlet.



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Judge rules Montana law defining sex as only male or female is unconstitutional

Published

on

Judge rules Montana law defining sex as only male or female is unconstitutional


Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

A judge ruled that a Montana law which defined “sex” in state law, when referring to a person as only male or female, was unconstitutional, saying that the law’s description did not explicitly state its purpose.

Advertisement

District Court Judge Shane Vannatta struck down the 2023 law on Tuesday after a group of plaintiffs who identify as transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other identities sued, arguing the law denies legal recognition and protection to people who identify as gender-nonconforming, according to The Associated Press.

Vannatta did not address the claim of a lack of legal recognition and protection, but did say that the bill’s title did not adequately explain whether the word “sex” referred to gender or sexual intercourse and that it did not indicate the words “male” and “female” would be defined in the body of the bill.

“The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles,” Vannatta wrote.

BIDEN OFFICIALS PUSHED TO DROP AGE LIMIT ON TRANS SURGERIES FOR MINORS: REPORT

A judge ruled that a Montana law that defined “sex” in state law, when referring to a person, as only male or female was unconstitutional. (AP)

Advertisement

Montana’s law, S.B. 458, is similar to ones passed in Kansas and Tennessee.

The bill sought to revise laws to “provide a common definition for the word sex when referring to a human,” the text reads.

It defines “male” as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.”

“Female” was defined in the bill as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.”

Transgender pride flag

Plaintiffs who identify as transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other identities sued, arguing the law denies legal recognition and protection to people who identify as gender-nonconforming. (ALLISON DINNER/AFP via Getty Images)

The law was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Carl Glimm, who said the legislation was needed after a state judge ruled in 2022 that transgender people could change the gender markers on their birth certificates.

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is proud of the law he signed, which he said codified the long-recognized and commonsense definition of sex, the governor’s spokesman Sean Southard told The Associated Press.

“Words matter. And this administration is committed to ensuring words have meaning, unlike this judge, who apparently needs a dictionary to discern the difference between a noun and a verb,” Southard said.

Montana Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman Emilee Cantrell said her office would continue to defend the law “that reflects scientific reality.”

TRANSGENDER ATHLETE COMPLAINS ABOUT LACK OF SPORTSMANSHIP FROM FELLOW RUNNERS AFTER WINNING GIRLS STATE TITLE

Gianforte

Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is proud of the law he signed, a spokesman for his office said. (Garrett Turner/Office of the Governor)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana applauded the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is an important vindication of the safeguards that the Montana Constitution places on legislative enactments,” ACLU of Montana legal director Alex Rate said.

The bill was passed in 2023 during a legislative session when a ban on gender transition treatment for minors was also approved and when transgender Democrat state Rep. Zooey Zephyr was expelled from the House floor after a protest against Republican lawmakers who had silenced the Democrat.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending