The Session Subscribe: Apple Podcast | Spotify The Session | The judiciary and wildfires EPISODE DESCRIPTIONIt’s week 13 for the 69th Legislature. Proposals to regulate the judiciary are seeing limited success. And a public utility is seeking legislative protection during wildfire season. This is The Session, a look at the policy and politics inside the Montana statehouse.EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Shaylee Ragar:  It is Week 13 for the 69th Legislature. Proposals to regulate the judiciary are seeing limited success, and a public utility is seeking legislative protection during wildfire season. This is The Session, a look at the policy and politics inside the Montana State House. I’m Shaylee Ragar with Montana Public Radio.Zeke Lloyd: I’m Zeke Lloyd Montana Free Press. Tom Lutey: And I’m Tom Lutey with Montana Free Press. Shaylee Ragar: So I think it’s finally spring out. Do you guys think that’s the case? It’s pretty sunny. Zeke Lloyd: I’m convinced it’s summer. Shaylee Ragar: I might have just jinxed us, Zeke, I’m sorry. But it feels good to see the sun when we spend so much time in this building.Before we get into some of the policy that lawmakers are considering right now, we have some updates on ethics questions in the Montana Senate that you’ve heard us talk about. The legislative audit division published a report that found no evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse in President Matt Regier’s public contracts with a private attorney for legislative work.The senator who made the motion to review those contracts cited reporting from Montana Free Press. Montana Free Press stands by its reporting that was largely confirmed by the legislative auditor’s review. And then last week there was also big movement on the ethics investigation into Senator Jason Ellsworth, a Hamilton Republican.The Senate failed to find consensus on a punishment for Ellsworth. Tom, what happened there? Tom Lutey: Well, it takes a super majority to expel a lawmaker, which is a really high bar for a Senate that’s been narrowly divided on several votes this session. There were two attempts to expel Ellsworth and one to censure him–neither side could get 34 votes. What we did see was four Democrats voting with a majority of Republicans for expulsion. So at least on that issue, the Democratic minority in their coalition with nine Republicans to sort of form an impromptu majority in the Senate. They don’t seem to be as unified as they have been.Shaylee Ragar: And my understanding, right, is they could take this vote up again on punishment for Ellsworth. Tom Lutey: Yes, Chief Legal Counsel Todd Everts says that they could have as many motions as they want. Shaylee Ragar: So another topic area where lawmakers are also struggling to find consensus is on bills to regulate the judiciary.This is a big priority for Republicans this session. Tom, remind us what we’re talking about here. Tom Lutey: Well, there were several bills to limit the power of the judicial branch crafted during the interim by a Senate Select Committee of Republicans. Laws passed by Republicans on everything from voting to environmental policy and abortion have been rejected by the courts in recent years on constitutional grounds.Shaylee Ragar: And this is somewhat of a response, right? Tom Lutey: Yes. The bills address everything from auditing the state bar to performance evaluations for judges and they’ve had mixed success. Eleven of the 27 crafted have died. One of the big survivors is Senate Bill 42, which would make judicial races partisan.“Montanans deserve transparency in their judicial elections.” That was heard last week in the House. I spoke with House speaker Brandon Ler about lawmakers being divided on whether all judicial races should be partisan or just state Supreme Court races. Of course, Democrats have been clear they want court races to remain non-partisan as they are currently.“I urge you to vote no on this ill-advised bill that seeks to allow the judicial branch of government to become more politicized. I firmly believe that judges should not be influenced by political contributions and partisan pressures.”Shaylee Ragar: You know, I’m remembering Governor Greg Gianforte during his state of the state address in January asking lawmakers to make this a priority.“Let’s bring light to the darkness. That’s why I’m asking you to send to my desk a bill that empowers Montana voters to know a judicial candidate’s political party.” Yes and there’s already been quite a bit of dog whistling on state Supreme Court races to signal which candidates are preferred by the party.Governor Gianforte on the talk radio circuit in ‘24 and ‘22 offered mnemonic devices to help voters keep candidates straight. Last year it was ‘Vote for the Sons’–Cory Swanson and Dan Wilson. In ‘22, it was, ‘Brown Rice is good for you’–a reference to James Brown and Jim Rice. You know, parties have been able to promote and endorse candidates for a few years now, but the candidates cannot self-identify with a political party.Senate Bill 42 would also allow parties to share funds with judicial candidates who already have a discount rate for advertising, which means those party dollars would stretch further. Shaylee Ragar: I think it is also worth noting that the new chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Cory Swanson, was backed by Republicans in his election as you mentioned, Tom, and he came and gave an address to lawmakers and he asked them to leave judicial elections non-partisan. Tom, what will you be watching going forward? Tom Lutey: Well, I think it’s worth a note, Speaker Ler told me, when I asked him about Swanson’s speech on the House floor, he didn’t seem very swayed by that.I think the bill to watch, of all the judicial bills that are left, is Senate Bill 42. It would change the nature of court races in Montana, sort of taking them back to partisan races that we really haven’t seen in decades. That has to be the one to watch. Shaylee Ragar: So the debate over these bills on the judiciary are hot right now, okay, stick with me, stick with me Zeke, there’s another debate that you’ve been watching and in fact you’ve been watching a subject that’s also pretty hot: Wildfires–something we as Montanans live with, know a lot about, have to experience. So what kind of legislation have you been following on this front, Zeke? Zeke Lloyd: A whole bunch. Senate Bill 394 would allow first responders to utilize workers’ compensation for PTSD-related care. We also have House Bill 136, which would allow insurance companies to offer lower rates to property owners who take steps to mitigate their property from fire risk, and then there’s House Bill 490, which would set up some structures for entities who are pursuing civil damages against a utility company that they’re alleging started a wildfire. It also mandates that utility companies implement and update wildfire mitigation plans and exchange for that change in liability. Shaylee Ragar: Let’s dig into House Bill 490, specifically. Can you help us understand what’s the context here? Are there real life examples that people look to when they’re talking about utilities and wildfire?Zeke Lloyd: Yeah, and what’s really interesting about this is it’s all over the country. “I’m certain you have all read about recent fires in California, Hawaii, Colorado and Oregon, where utilities have faced a barrage of civil and criminal lawsuits.”And obviously in Montana, as well, including the West Wind Fire in 2021 in Denton, Montana, which destroyed more than 25 home structures and an enormous grain silo as well.Shaylee Ragar: I actually went to Denton the day after that fire happened to do some reporting and it was super destructive for that small central Montana town. And the cause of that fire was an electrical line, right? Zeke Lloyd: That’s absolutely right. And opponents of House Bill 490 are pointing out that this bill might be shifting the liability too much in the favor of utilities who have started fires in the past.Shaylee Ragar: So how would this bill work? Zeke Lloyd: It’s complicated. So if you believe that a utility company started a wildfire and that wildfire caused you damage, this bill essentially creates a legal framework that says you have to show both that the utility company started the fire and that the utility company acted negligently.Now, that’s unlike California’s strict liability, which requires a plaintiff only to prove that the utility started the fire, not that they were negligent. Shaylee Ragar: Okay, Zeke, so who supports this bill and why do they say it’s necessary? Zeke Lloyd: Well, the bill was drafted by some of Montana’s largest public utilities, including Northwestern Energy, and they’re saying that while strict liability isn’t currently Montana’s precedent, they don’t want it to become Montana’s precedent under any circumstances. They’re talking about massive wildfires all along the West coast, and that if something like that happened here, they wouldn’t be able to pay for it. “We are innocent until proven guilty. If we have been negligent, we’ll pay. But if we’re not negligent, it shouldn’t cost us going into bankruptcy.”Pacific Gas & Electric in California went bankrupt over wildfire related liabilities. And so in Montana, a lot of utilities are saying that the increased costs associated with mitigating wildfire and in ensuring themselves are gonna be passed on to ratepayers. Shaylee Ragar: Zeke, you already mentioned opposition to this, but I’m curious who is coming out in opposition?Zeke Lloyd: What’s tough about wildfire is it can cause a lot of damage and someone is gonna have to pay for it and House Bill 490 is essentially pushing that liability a little bit farther away from utility companies. But that means that some of the other entities who are nervous about having to pay for wildfire are coming out to testify against it.So insurers are a really good example of that. Insurers are nervous. That the wildfire mitigation plans mandated in the bill aren’t gonna be good enough to actually protect Montana from utility caused wildfires. Environmental groups agree saying that the bill doesn’t do enough. The bill says that a court can’t consider whether a public utility is spending any money on its wildfire mitigation plan as a way to measure the actual effectiveness of that wildfire mitigation plan.Also, victims of the 2021 West Wind Fire in Denton, Montana, say that fighting a public utility in court is already difficult enough and this bill is only gonna make that process even harder. “I’m here representing our family farm and ranch that was destroyed by utility fire in Denton, Montana in the 2021 West Wind Fire. We’re still fighting to be made whole.” And the Public Service Commission testified against the bill because it doesn’t feel like it’s equipped to be able to gauge whether the wildfire mitigation plans from Northwestern and Montana Dakota Utilities are actually gonna be able to mitigate fire risk. The bill’s already been amended a lot and at the end of its Senate Judiciary hearing sounds like lawmakers including Hamilton Republican, Theresa Manzella ready to see a little bit more work done.“If I had to vote on this bill today, it would be a no. But I have a strong faith in the sponsor that she will work to bring the two sides together so that we can support this bill because it’s an extremely important bill.” Shaylee Ragar: Lots to watch in the next couple of weeks here. Thank you both so much for your reporting.We’ll close it out there for now, but before we leave, Zeke, what was your favorite moment last week? Zeke Lloyd: Well, Shaylee, you know, I love a good Pop-Tart, and I know you love a good Pop-Tart, and you know who else I’ve een snacking on some Pop-Tarts? Miles City Republican Ken Bogner. He has a bunch in his office, he has like four boxes of those things. It’s awesome. I’m inspired. Shaylee Ragar: You know how all of the legislators who have mustaches have a mustache caucus? Zeke Lloyd: I’ve heard of this. Shaylee Ragar: We can make a Pop-Tart caucus! Tom, what was your favorite moment last week? Tom Lutey: Oh, I think it had to be Tuesday morning. I was coming into the Capitol at about 7 a.m. and the place was pretty empty. So I sort of watched the cars trickling in as people arrived. And then when I walked into the building on every floor that I walked through, as I made it up to the third floor in the House chambers, there were people getting ready for the day for all the committee meetings, for the floor sessions, and it was kinda like watching a table set for a very large dinner.Shaylee Ragar: I’m gonna cheat a little bit on my favorite moment. It wasn’t last week, it was the Friday before, but we haven’t talked about it. And I wanna touch on the plaque that was unveiled in honor of late journalist Chuck Johnson. “He was known for his honesty, his integrity and his unflagging commitment to mentoring new reporters coming up in the field.”He reported on the State House in politics for decades in Montana and he was such a kind person, I got to know him and learned so, so, so much from him as I know so many journalists did, and he now has a permanent plaque on the third floor of the Capitol.“And it’s a fitting tribute that a plaque should hang in the People’s house, our state Capitol, to commemorate his contributions as the state’s longest serving State House reporter and a friend and colleague to so many.”And that was a really great ceremony.So I think we’ll leave it there for today. This has been The Session, a look at the policy and politics inside the Montana State House. Thanks. Zeke Lloyd: Great to be here. Tom Lutey: Thank you, Shaylee.The post The Session | The judiciary and wildfires appeared first on Montana Free Press. ...read more read less