- [Announcer] Happening now on "The Rundown."

(spectators cheer and applaud) (Chair bangs gavel) - Of order!

- [Jackie The end of the legislative session is drawing near and in the mad dash to keep or kill bills is on.

- I think we can read a boogie man into this bill if you want, but it just ain't there.

- I'm Jackie Coffin and "The Rundown: Capitol Reports" starts now.

"The Rundown" is made possible by the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans.

"The Rundown: Capitol Report" takes place primarily in Helena, which is the original home lands of the Salish, Pend d'Oreille, Blackfeet Shoshone, Bannock and Apsaalooke people.

Welcome, and thank you for joining me again here in Helena where the session is almost over, but a lot happened this week as bill's passed, died, and some were revived into new forms.

This week I'll take a closer look at legislation regarding transgender Montanans, vaccines, coal and energy, and missing and murdered indigenous people.

I'll also update you on two lawsuits calling into question new laws.

Let's begin.

While the calendar takes the session into May, the general consensus is that the session will end on or before next Friday, April 30th.

The only thing the legislature has to do when it meets is pass a budget, which this session is House Bill 2.

The current status of House Bill 2 is it is in conference committee, meaning it went through the House, it passed through the Senate, it went back to the House with Senate amendments, and the House voted not to accept those, sending it to a conference committee, where it's worked on more and then returned to both chambers for another vote.

This is not atypical, and this happened with a lot of other bills, including the bill allocating federal stimulus, ARPA funds, and other more controversial bills like House Bill 112.

House Bill 112, carried by Representative John Fuller, a Republican from Whitefish, requires students K through college to compete in sports based on their sex at birth.

Montana is one of 32 states where state legislators are attempting to pass such a law.

And it does come with consequences.

The NCAA recently released a statement that, if Montana passes such a law, our state would no longer be allowed to host championship events or FCS tournament games, which both the University of Montana and Montana State University hosted in 2019.

Losing these games, bill critics say, would cost the state millions of dollars.

Representative Fuller says the reason he brought the bill is to protect women and women's sports.

- For fairness, we create categories for sports based on age and sex, as well as weight, experience, and skill.

Being transgender should not be a basis for discriminary treatment based on gender, but sex-based rights are based on sex, not gender.

- [Jackie] Over the course of the session, protests have been held in front of the Capitol against anti-LGBTQ legislation, including HB112.

- [Woman] What do we want?

- [Crowd] Freedom!

- [Woman] When do we want it?

- [Crowd] Now!

- [Jackie] Thursday and Friday HB112 was back on the floors of both chambers for a vote.

- [Man In Foreground] The bill as amended protects federal funding in a manner that is both prudent and responsible, so I ask that you vote green.

- This is a bad bill, it was a bad idea.

It was a bad bill when it left this chamber.

And what this amendment does is it just tries to buy us a little bit more time so we can be punitive.

The reality is is that there's a huge economic impact and it could potentially cost the state 350 million in federal education funding.

And also we've seen that the NCAA has reacted and is not going to allow any playoff championship games in a state that has this on the books.

So the governor of North Dakota just vetoed a very similar bill, we should probably follow suit and have a little more respect for our friends and neighbors, vote no.

- A good senator from Missoula the other day said that the amendment, she was probably in favor of the amendment, but was against the bill, or against the amendment and against the bill.

It is a bad bill, it's not a bill that's necessary.

So I would please vote no.

- By the time this year is over, bills like House Bill 112 could be law in 15 or more states.

Let's protect women's sports here in Montana.

It preserves the gains made by female athletes over the last 49-year history of Title IX, vote green.

- [Jackie] HB112 passed, as amended, through the House and the Senate Thursday and Friday.

HB112's companion bill, House Bill 426, also carried by Fuller, prevents transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming health care.

In the House, this effort failed, was introduced as a new bill, and finally passed.

And this week it was finally scheduled for a vote in the Senate, but it was not the vote expected.

- Senator Bennett.

- [Bennett] Mr. President, I move to indefinitely postpone House Bill 427.

- [Chair] Okay, 27 Senators have voting aye, 22 have voted no.

House Bill 427 has indefinitely been postponed.

Motions.

- [Jackie] With the support of every Democrat and eight Republicans, the Senate killed HB427.

This week, "PBS NewsHour" released the results of a poll conducted with NPR and Marist College showing how Americans of different political orientations nationwide feel about the wave of anti-trans bills in different state legislatures.

The poll finds overall two-thirds of Americans oppose anti-trans legislation, and that's consistent across party lines.

69% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 67% of Independents say they oppose legislation that would prohibit transgender student athletes from joining sports teams that match their gender identity.

70% of Republicans, 69% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents oppose legislation that would prohibit gender transition-related medical care for minors.

With HB427 dead and HB112 passed, the question lingering is if HB112 will be signed into law or vetoed by Governor Greg Gianforte.

On Thursday, Gianforte quietly signed into law SB215, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act carried by Senator Carl Glimm, a Republican from Kila.

RIFRA, as it's called, strengthens legal protections for religious freedom cases, especially when challenged in court.

- Do we need this in Montana?

Yes, we do.

You have heard the list of cases, and there are many more, where state or local government has taken actions that have unduly burdened the exercise of free religion.

Governor Gianforte emphasizes this is not a license to discriminate against the LGBTQ.

They are hired as employees across the state.

It is not a license for lodging facilities or private employers to discriminate.

- [Jackie] Bill opponents say it takes Montana back to the days before non-discrimination orders and will open the door for discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

- They said over and over and over again, this is not about LGBTQ discrimination.

(spectators laugh and groan) We know that's a lie!

And they are doing incredible mental gymnastics trying to say it's not about us.

Guess what?

We know.

Guess what?

We're here.

Guess what?

We're not gonna shut up.

(spectators cheer and applaud) - [Jackie] Other bills signed into law this week by the governor, on Thursday, he held a bill signing for a package of bills addressing the missing and murdered indigenous people crisis in Montana.

- The missing and murdered indigenous persons crisis has tragically impacted far too many families in Montana.

And let me be clear, it must end.

In Montana, Native Americans make up about 7% of the population, but they account for 26% of missing persons.

Between 2017 and 2019, nearly 80% of those reported missing were teenagers younger than 18 years of age.

Native American women face a murder rate 10 times higher than the national average.

And 84% experience some form of violence in their lifetime.

Time is of the essence, and we must bring all resources to bear to curb this tragic trend.

- [Jackie] Two bills, House Bill 35 and House Bill 98, were carried by Representative Sharon Stewart-Peregoy, a Democrat from Crow Agency.

The third, Senate Bill 4, was carried by Senator Jason Small, a Republican from Busby.

Altogether, the bills extend the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Task Force and establishes the Missing Indigenous Persons Review Commission, all through the Department of Justice.

Present at the bill signing was the family and friends of 16-year-old Selena Not Afraid, who went missing near Hardin in January, 2020 before she was ultimately found deceased.

- Over a year ago, we stood alone in a rest area wondering what we were gonna do, because everybody left us.

Everybody who had authority left us.

So we stayed and we figured out ways to make Selena interesting.

It hurts me to say that, but I had to make her story stand out from everybody else's, otherwise people were gonna just scroll on by her.

So it took a lot of strength.

And I got that strength from her and my sister, Jackie, her mom.

I'm not her mother, so I was able to stand up, I was able to do all this stuff.

But I wasn't able to do it alone, never alone.

If it wasn't for other families where we started, for volunteer search efforts and for Operation Lady Justice, for the Montana Task Force, for Everett, the Indian Caucus.

And not just the Indian Caucus, everybody who voted yes on these bills.

And definitely the governor.

It all ends up here and we're here because of him.

And we're here because of not just Selena, but Selena told me, "Don't stop, because there's other girls standing behind me."

So when we did get her back, which is amazing, a miracle that we got her back, because some don't come home, from there we just, I told myself it wasn't over, that I had things to do.

I didn't know what the things were to do, so I thank everybody else who joined the race behind me, because they knew what to do.

Me, I didn't know what to do.

I just knew to stand and shout as loud as I could and hope somebody heard me and ran with it.

So we're all here today because somebody did hear Selena.

They did hear Kaysera, they did hear Kamani.

They heard them through us and they heard them through them and they heard them through Governor Gianforte.

And that's why we're their voices.

So I want to thank everybody.

And I'm very thankful and honored to be here.

- On Monday, the governor signed into law two bills impacting the ways Montanans vote, though the ceremony was not open to the media.

HB176 ends same-day voter registration in Montana.

Senate Bill 169 requires ID when voting and registering to vote, but also restricts what types of ID are acceptable.

One big change, student IDs are no longer valid.

The next day, the Montana Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in Billings District Court against Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, saying these two bills violate the Montana constitution's right to vote and equal protection guarantees.

Jacobsen's legal counsel has yet to respond.

This is the second lawsuit filed so far against bills passed this session and signed into law by Governor Gianforte.

The legislature is currently wrapped up in a lawsuit against Senate Bill 140, which was signed by Governor Gianforte right before St. Patrick's Day.

Senate Bill 140, carried by Senator Keith Regier, a Republican from Kalispell, changes the way vacancies in the judicial branch are filled in Montana.

Specifically, it does away with the Judicial Standards Committee, which has been responsible for picking judicial nominees for the last 50 years.

And instead, SB140 allows the governor to directly pick replacements.

Opponents of the bill and plaintiffs in the lawsuit say this is unconstitutional and tramples on the separation of powers between our three branches of government.

Since then, the lawsuit has opened a can of worms into perceived judicial impartiality in Montana, and legislative Republicans say a set of released emails show the judicial branch is pre-judging the legality of bills moving through the legislature.

The legislature has even formed a Special Committee on Judicial Accountability and Transparency, which met a couple of times this week.

- The basic issue in this matter is whether members of the judiciary or their employees have deleted or are refusing to produce email records of things they may now wish they would not have put in email.

In other words, do the emails show the judges and the justice is biased?

If the judges have declared a new law unconstitutional before it has even passed, are they impartial enough to listen to both sides when the law is challenged?

Nobody would be claiming this is a witch hunt, or even mildly controversial, if administrators in the executive branch were being asked to produce their emails.

Agencies receive public records requests daily and respond as required by law.

The courts must do the same.

Again, this committee is not asking the judiciary or its employees to produce records of the real cases actually in their (audio lost), the committee is simply asking the judiciary to produce emails about their positions on legislation and whether they have created a conflict of interest for themselves in hearing any lawsuits that will come after the legislation is passed.

There's nothing confidential about that.

The court cannot create a special confidential because we said so policy about their own emails.

They are public records subject to public review.

- I'm not sure what this committee is doing, if I'm being honest.

We heard from the chief justice.

He answered the questions that were in front of us in some detail about how the judicial branch engages with legislation that is active through their association and through polls.

We know that the Supreme Court justices do not, as a practice, respond to those polls for exactly the reasons that you're discussing today.

We know that one justice recused himself because of conversations.

We know that justices routinely make assessments about whether they have a conflict.

We depend on that.

They do it, they have rules and the Code of Ethics to do that.

They have been doing that.

This is an attack on an independent, co-equal, non-partisan branch of government that is a culmination of a session-long just barrage of legislation to make the court more partisan, less independent.

And it feels like a power grab from two branches of government that are partisan.

To me, I'm incredibly disappointed and we need to protect the checks and balances that Montana's depend on that allow our government to run.

I'm really disappointed in this committee.

I'm really disappointed in the tone of the questions today.

And that's all I have.

- In a Monday meeting, all seven of Montana's Supreme Court justices attended and answered questions.

The lawsuit moves on, and this legislative committee says it will prepare a preliminary report on findings and potentially continue the committee into the interim.

A moment that has gained a lot of attention this week happened Thursday during the Senate floor session.

- I've read articles about putting a little chip in with the vaccine.

- [Jackie] The Senate gallery was full of supporters of House Bill 702, a bill prohibiting discrimination based on immunization statutes or vaccine passports.

Last week, Governor Gianforte signed an executive order prohibiting COVID-19 vaccine passports to be established in Montana.

A vaccine passport is pretty much what it sounds like.

It's a document containing proof of vaccinations.

While Gianforte's order specifically spells out COVID-19 vaccines, House Bill 702 does not specify any one vaccination.

But the discussion on the Senate floor focused on vaccines against COVID-19.

- This is the foot in the door.

The camel's going under the tent, the foot in the door.

This is the opportunity to not just have vaccine status on a passport, but your religious preference, your political identity, what you believe, what you think.

I would bet not one in 10 denominations represented in this room have a doctrinal position on vaccination status, but I would bet there's dozens and dozens in this room that have a sincerely-held religious belief that is being challenged, and they're expected to defend it in front of a tribunal.

This is what we used to do in the 1600s in the witch hunts.

So the question for this legislature today is, are we going to allow governments to refuse goods, services, employment opportunities?

This is not about putting on your hard hat or your knee guards.

This can be about life or death.

- [Woman] Particularly in our senior care facilities, nursing homes, assisted living, and long-term care.

Most of these facilities in the State of Montana accept Medicare and Medicaid, and the federal government, CMS, has requirements that these facilities have to abide by or they lose their ability to accept Medicaid and Medicare.

That means that most of the folks that needed these service, our seniors, folks with disabilities, and folks who need specialized care, would no longer be able to receive that care if they're found to be not in compliance with those federal requirements.

So that concern was brought to our committee.

There was an amendment that could have addressed this, but we didn't get it there.

I just also want to remind the body that there have been over three million deaths worldwide due to this virus that's out there right now.

And in the United States, 569,000 deaths, I think largely, and that number is going up as people continue to choose not to get vaccinated.

I'm very excited that I'll be getting my second shot this afternoon.

- [Jackie] The comment of the day was awarded to Senator Keith Regier, a Republican from Kalispell.

- So it's still requiring an employee to put something into their bodies in order to be employed.

That's crazy, what's next?

I've read articles about putting a little chip in with the vaccine.

There you got right there.

So what if that is federally approved and the employer requires that?

We've had a lot of bills talking about personal privacy this session.

- [Jackie] Ultimately, House Bill 702 passed.

And the next day, so did House Bill 703, a companion bill that prohibits proof of immunity or vaccination for access to public goods and services like hotels and restaurants.

- [Chair] 31 Senators having- (spectators cheer and applaud) (chair bangs gavel) Of order!

Order in the chamber!

- Finally this week, I want to look at a series of bills related to coal-fired facilities and how it relates to how much you could pay for your energy bills.

It's also an example of how some legislative efforts can come back from the dead.

For months, Senate Bill 379 has been drumming up controversy including protests across Montana.

It allows a utility company to acquire coal-fired plants and recover costs of the purchase, operation, and even losses through rates it sets for energy consumers and customers.

SB379 does not name any specific plant or utility company, but it is understood by everyone that the coal-fired plants are those in Colstrip and that the utility company is Northwestern Energy.

The bill allows Northwestern Energy to purchase a larger share of the Colstrip plants which are currently in the process of closing down due to fall and global demand for coal and stiffening environmental regulations and emission standards.

NWE could distribute the cost of the purchase to its many Montana customers paying for natural gas and electricity.

It would also be able to distribute other costs associated with operations and losses from the plant to customers as well.

According to memos from the Public Service Commission and information from the Montana Environmental Information Center, Northwestern Energy would be allowed to charge $721 annually per customer for its existing shares of the plant and an additional $700 per customer per year from new shares of the plants.

It would be allowed to charge these costs regardless of how much the plant operates.

And SB379 would prevent Montana's Public Service Commission from regulating the rates being charged to customers, which is exactly what the PSC is elected by voters to do.

After making it all the way through the Senate, SB379 was tabled this week by the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote, including conservative Republicans, effectively killing it.

- We shouldn't pass something that affects one tiny little customer or industry or person that's in an overall industry.

That's not what we're supposed to do.

We should pass legislation that affects the entire industry, not just one component.

So there's strike one in my mind.

Strike two is new section two, and this is the fact that, and this is on line 24, page two, "An electric utility granted cost recovery and a rate of return in accordance with Section One shall continue to operate the coal-fired generation unit until the Commission issues an order finding that closure of the units is in the public interest."

Holy cow.

So I want to get Montana, next cycle, guys, can you pass a bill please that says my company can't be shut down because it's in the public interest?

I believe that was 11 ayes, one nay.

So this, Senate Bill 379 has been tabled.

That ends executive on this one.

- [Jackie] But that wasn't the end.

- [Chair] House Bill 695 has been moved, do pass.

- Mr.

Chair, we do have an amendment, and I will move on that now also.

- [Jackie] Two days later, on Friday, the effort was revived in the form of an amendment on an unrelated bill.

- If there are power outages or reduced generation due to complying with environmental regulations law or permit requirements, that they can get fully, they can get a full cost recovery.

And that's the mechanism of, the cost would go to the rate base.

- So Northwest Energy, or anybody who's buying coal-fired power, would be under this, and the PSC cannot, it says on the front page, they cannot, they shall allow a utility to fully recover replacement costs.

That means they can't disallow them, even if they think they shouldn't, that the company shouldn't be reimbursed for that.

So this is a guarantee that what happened in Texas, that the company can roll that and charge all of those folks for the stuff that they were to blame for.

And I don't think that this should be on the shoulders of the rate payers.

The rate payers have a group of folks in the Commission, the PSC, that is supposed to be on their side, that's supposed to look at a regulated entity and decide whether or not the rate payers should pay that or not.

And so if we take this out, then the rate payers are on the hook and the PSC cannot say no to that.

It is a very bad amendment and we should not pass it.

- I think we can read a boogeyman into this bill, if you want, but it just ain't there.

I don't see any hairy creatures in this bill.

- Also included in the amendment was another dead energy effort relating to nuclear energy, saying the state may not deny a permit or application for a nuclear power facility because federal regulations do not provide for a permanent repository for nuclear waste.

Ultimately, the amendment passed, and so did the bill, meaning next week it could be one of the last things this legislature votes on in the 67th Session.

That's all the time we have this week on "The Rundown: Capitol Report."

I'll see you next Sunday in Helena.

"The Rundown" is made possible by the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans.