Plan to shrink Montana Supreme Court: designed to force the court into tort reform and out of redistricting lawsuits?

January 18th, 2011 by Bill Raftery Leave a reply »

The effort to shrink the Montana Supreme Court from 7 members to 5, first discussed here, was heard in the Montana House Judiciary Committee today (audio and video here).

According to a fiscal note prepared on HB 245 the reduction would mean “a caseload increase of approximately 40% per justice. The time to disposition of Supreme Court cases would increase dramatically and cases may not be resolved timely.”

The author of HB 245, Rep. Derek Skees, told the House Judiciary Committee his intent in introducing the bill was to shrink government and save money. As for the caseload increase, Skees implied that while other Montana residents were having to do “more with less”, the Supreme Court had not and that the justices could “easily” handle the workload and achieve the guarantee of “speedy justice” in the state constitution. Skees also made clear his desire to obtain tort reform through the reduction of the size of the Supreme Court.

All of us want tort reform, well maybe not all of us.  I surely want it and a lot of folks I talk to want it. So how do we get tort reform? I would suggest that if we took the Supreme Court from 7 down to 5, they have a higher workload, guess who becomes our ally in tort reform? The Supreme Court.

Skees concluded his testimony with his desire to reduce the entire Supreme Court’s budget by 40%.

Rick Breckenridge of the Lake County Republican Party spoke in favor of the bill, noting to Republican members of the committee that:

We have redistricting and we need a tightened down Supreme Court in order to achieve that. So take control of the reins of the Supreme Court, show them who is in charge, and remember that with redistricting, how we (Republicans) have been treated by the Supreme Court in the past.

Opponents included the State Bar President Joe Sullivan who noted the massive slowdown that would result in the adjudication of both civil and criminal cases and impacting the economy. The State Bar opposes the bill “because it denies the citizens of Montana timely and swift access to their justice system.” Additionally, the chief prosecutor in the state Attorney-General’s office spoke out against the bill noting that, with lack of an intermediate appellate court, Montana’s 7 member Supreme Court was helpful for speedy deliberation of cases.

The chair of the committee noted a former justice of the Supreme Court resigned due to the already crushing burden on the court’s workload.

No vote was taken on the bill.

Leave a Reply