Montana SB 279 has become law. It provides that in November 2016, the voters will vote on whether they want to amend the election law, to require a special election for U.S. Senate, when a seat becomes vacant. Current law lets the Governor appoint someone who holds the office until the next regularly-scheduled election.
The legislature could have simply passed an ordinary law making the same change, as was done this year in North Dakota. But apparently the Republican-majority legislature thought the Governor, who is a Democrat, might veto the bill. So they passed the idea as a referendum, which doesn’t need approval by the Governor. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the voters will approve the idea next year.
SB 279 may have passed both Houses of the Montana Legislature but won’t become law until the voters decide on the issue. This vote was merely to place this issue before the voters.
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billhtml/SB0279.htm
The Governor had signed another like bill in SB 169 that would also allow for special elections as well. So does SB 279 become moot?http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billhtml/SB0169.htm
Good I think special elections are fairer.
David,
SB 169 had an amendment put on it that said if both SB 169 and SB 279 passed, that SB 279 would be moot. SB 279 is not the referendum, but the vehicle for placing the changes on the ballot; so passage for SB 279 required approval by both the House and Senate, while passage for SB 169 also required approval by the governor.
There appear to be some tender feelings from last year when Governor Bullock’s appointment to replace Senator Baucus turned out to be incredibly flawed. There were originally three different bills to provide for special elections, including one that would not permit a temporary appointment.
One of the proponents had attempted an initiative in 2014, but after getting all the approvals, had just a few weeks to gather signatures.
SB 169 passed the Senate 48:2 in February, but had only been heard in House committee. SB 279 was passed right at the deadline for approval of referendum bills. It required a fiscal note, because of the cost of the referendum. There are at least 13 measures approved for the November 2016 ballot so that the incremental cost is next to zero, but a cost is assigned based on dividing the cost of the election by all offices and all measures.
It was after SB 279 was approved by the Senate that the House committee finally approved SB 169 after adding the coordination language.
There was an attempt to amend SB 169 in both the House committee and on 2nd reading by Bryce Bennett, who looks like he would not be out of place in a model legislature, and sometimes acts like it as well. These were defeated on a largely party-line vote, and then SB 169 was passed 100:0.
The day after the House passed SB 169, SB 279 was passed by a house committee. Since SB 169 had been amended in the House by adding the coordination language, the Senate had to concur in the amendment which it did on April 14, but it then had to be signed by the governor.
SB 279 passed the House on a 60-40 party line vote on April 17, but did not finish all the additional steps to trigger a referendum until April 27. Governor Bullock signed SB 169 the next day.
The Republicans may have been concerned about an amendatory veto, or the Democrats may have been dilatory in hopes the bill would not pass.
Had Baucus resigned under the terms of HB 169, there would have been a special election coincident with the primary. But had HB 169 been in effect, Baucus would likely have delayed his resignation another month, which would have voided the special election.
This whole business of senators resigning to take presidential appointments, while the governor appoints a “temporary” replacement is at least as corrupt as the pre-17th Amendment system of election by the legislature.