News you can use
The two of us are from different political parties, don’t always agree on legislation and actually ran a spirited campaign against one another several years ago. Having said that, we are not enemies. In fact, it’s just the opposite. We are friends that actually get along and work together as much as possible for the betterment of the Hi-Line and those who live and work here.
One legislative proposal we both were pleased to enthusiastically support, along with 86% of our House and Senate colleagues, was Senate Bill 442, sponsored by our fellow Hi-Line legislator, Senator Mike Lang of Malta. SB 442 revised the distribution of marijuana taxes to a number of good and worthy causes, including county road construction and maintenance; enhancing wildlife habitat, state parks and recreational facilities; as well as for Montana’s veterans and surviving spouses special revenue account. In short, this legislation funded important priorities both Democrats and Republicans supported. The final vote totals in the House and Senate in support of this legislation were, collectively, 130 in favor and 20 opposed.
Rarely does legislation of any magnitude receive the broad bipartisan support SB 442 garnered in the 2023 session. Even though this legislation had champions on both sides of the aisle and brought advocacy groups of every political stripe together in support of a Montana-made solution to some of our most vexing funding difficulties, the governor opted to veto this bill at the end of the session. That is his prerogative, as per the authority vested with the governor as chief executive of our state.
This, however, is where the plot thickens and where the very worst of politics seemed to raise its head. Following the governor’s veto, rather than quickly allow the Legislature the opportunity — and constitutional responsibility — to consider whether or not to override the veto, Senate Republican leadership, in concert with the Governor’s Office, held the vetoed bill for 323 days, or for more than 10 months, before polling the Legislature about whether we agreed with the Governor concerning his veto. While it was said that holding onto the vetoed legislation was a matter of timing related to when the Legislature adjourned, the Montana Supreme Court thought otherwise and required that members of the House and Senate get their shot at considering the Governor’s veto.
Finally, after the governor vetoed SB 442 on May 2, 2023, the Legislature had the chance to fulfill its constitutional responsibility regarding the veto when it was queried by the Secretary of State on March 19, 2024. Although this good legislation received 130 affirmative votes during the session, only 62 legislators voted to override the veto, with an astonishing 72 legislators not voting either way — which is counted as a vote to uphold the Governor’s veto. The vast majority of these 72 no-show votes were from Republicans who apparently bought into the governor’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision requiring the administration to poll legislators on the veto was the Court inappropriately involving itself in the affairs of the political branches of government.
The truth is that the Supreme Court simply required the governor to do what should have been done all along, and without fanfare — and that is to quickly allow the Legislature, a co-equal branch of government, to have its constitutional say on the veto of this popular, bipartisan piece of legislation that would have benefited scores of Montanans, including veterans, those who travel county roads and all of us who enjoy access to our state’s beautiful outdoor spaces, including state parks.
The debacle of SB 442 is unfortunate and represents the very worst of political gamesmanship. Montana can do better, Montanans expect us to do better and our pledge is to keep working together in a bipartisan way for the betterment of the Hi-Line and our entire state.
——
Sen. Russ Tempel of Chester is a Republican member of the Montana Senate and Rep. Paul Tuss of Havre is a Democratic member of the Montana House of Representatives.
Reader Comments(0)