“Even though the Court feels it can fill a perceived hole in the Legislature’s laws and rules governing the legislative processes, the Lobbying Organizations do not have standing.”
By Blair Miller of the Daily Montanan
Montana’s Governor and Secretary of State have asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit against Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) ‘s veto on Senate Bill 442 was widely supported and would have directed more marijuana revenues to county roads, conservation projects in the state.
Attorneys for Gianforte and Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen asked Lewis and Clark County district judge Mike Menahan earlier this month to dismiss the lawsuit, in which three groups sued claiming that Gianforte improperly had vetoed a measure in the last hours the legislative session and lawmakers should be allowed the vote to override a veto.
Attorneys for Gianforte, Jacobsen and the other organizations claim that the three groups are taking political positions and are asking the court to go beyond its mandate. The attorneys for Gianforte and Jacobsen also claim that the veto had been done correctly, that Jacobsen does not have the power to conduct an override vote because the entire legislature was in session at the time the bill was vetoed.
A two-thirds vote is required to override the governor’s veto. The legislature can override a governor’s veto if it is in session. If not, the secretary sends a ballot to the lawmakers who vote by mail.
Wild Montana, Montana Association of Counties, and Montana Wildlife Federation filed two lawsuits in June, which were consolidated. They asked the court for Jacobsen to send a ballot override via mail to legislators or to declare SB 442, claiming that the governor had not followed the law when he issued his veto.
SB 442 is the result of months of lobbying and work by legislators in order to find a solution for multiple competing bills regarding how to reallocate Montana marijuana tax revenues from the way lawmakers divided it up during the 2021 session.
Sponsor Sen. Mike Lang, R-Malta, and lobbyists from the three organizations who sued over the veto SB 442, were instrumental in crafting the bill that distributes the $50,000,000 in annual marijuana revenues to county roads a Habitat legacy fund, the general funds, trails, parks, recreation, veterans services, and a recovery and treatment fund. The measure was passed by 131 lawmakers out of 150 in both the House and Senate.
The administration supported the idea of sending more money to both the Department of Justice, as well as the general fund for state operations. In the weeks leading up to the final passage of the measure, some legislators noted that the Governor had stated he would veto it.
The governor’s office reported that Gianforte had vetoed at “sometime around 2 o’clock” on May 2. Shortly after, the Senate adjourned shortly after 3 pm.
The senators who supported the bill claimed they learned about the veto only after adjourning. They and lobbyists involved in the bill’s creation protested that the veto had to be read out loud on the Senate rostrum, while it was still in session, as the Senate is where the bill was drafted. Gianforte vetoed the bill, but the legislature was not in session. As such, the senators and lobbyists who worked on the bill protested, saying the veto should have been read aloud across the Senate rostrum while the chamber was still in session because that is where the bill originated.
The groups filed suit on June 7 alleging that the governor had committed “procedural tricks” by how quickly the bill passed, was signed by both the Senate President and House Speaker, and then sent to the Governor and vetoed the same day, while other bills were enrolled on that day but not transmitted until at least a week later.
Wildlife groups claimed that, unless a judge ruled otherwise, the governor’s ability to veto legislation after one chamber has adjourned gives him extraordinary powers that strain the system of checks-and-balances.
Attorneys for Gianforte, and Jacobsen, argued on August 18 that the three organizations do not have any judicial standing, and that the Governor and Secretary of State followed the state constitution, and legislative rules, in issuing their veto.
In their filing, attorneys for Gianforte stated that “there is no private right to action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment act or mandamus to force this Court draft and referee the procedures the Legislature uses in order to determine when they are in session and mechanics of the way it votes to override the votes.” The Court may believe it can fill in a perceived gap between the rules and statutes that govern the legislative process. However, there are no standing rights for the Lobbying Organizations because they do not have a private cause of actions.
Gianforte’s attorneys wrote in a letter that the requests of the groups are an attempt to have the judicial and executive branches compel each other to circumvent the constitution and laws “for the single purpose” to further the financial interests of the groups.
The organizations argue that they are asking the court for “additional rules” regarding what happens if a veto has been handed down while one chamber is not in session. However, both chambers were present when Gianforte’s SB 442 was vetoed.
The attorneys for the governor also maintained that, even if the legislative rules made it difficult for lawmakers to override an veto during a session, the legislature was responsible for updating the rules.
Gianforte’s lawyers wrote: “It is absurd to give private parties a right to sue when the Legislature was in session and when it wasn’t in session. Or how the internal rules for the Legislative Branch are to be operated.”
According to the attorneys, it is not logical to interpret “in sessions” to mean anything other than that at least one chamber must be active before both chambers vote to adjourn until further notice. They argued that if the Constitution was interpreted differently, it would mean that the Senate would have adjourned the session once the House had not approved the final version.
The attorneys concluded that to conclude otherwise would be absurd.
Jacobsen’s lawyers argued that she shouldn’t be a part of the lawsuit because she followed both the constitution and the law when she sent out override ballots for bills which were vetoed by both chambers after they had adjourned. She also claimed that Gianforte vetoed the bill while both chambers were still in session, and therefore was not subject to an override poll.
The attorneys wrote: “What Petitioners ask and advocate for on a Bill that the Secretary doesn’t have because the veto happened during session is illegal.” The attorneys wrote that the Secretary has no legal obligation to release a veto ballot when a bill was vetoed in session. She also does not have any legal authority to do this.
Judge Menahan is yet to rule on the latest government filings asking for dismissal of the case.
The story was originally published by Daily Montanan.
A study found that 9 out of 10 illicit marijuana samples contained pesticides in a’striking contrast’ to regulated products
The post Montana governor asks court to deny challenge to his veto of a marijuana revenue bill first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
