Generally revise laws relating to attorney fees and prevailing parties for veto overrides
The enactment of SB 38 will particularly impact how civil actions involving the state or its political subdivisions are handled concerning legislative veto override polls. It effectively protects government entities from being burdened by the costs of attorney fees in cases where legislative actions are challenged but do not result in a successful override of a veto. By revising Section 25-10-711, MCA, this legislation introduces a level of protection for the state against financially punitive outcomes in litigation tied to legislative decisions.
Senate Bill 38, introduced by G. Hertz at the request of the Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, focuses on amending laws related to attorney fee awards against government entities concerning legislative veto overrides. The bill stipulates that if a party seeks an action related to a legislative veto override poll and the result does not lead to an override of the veto, they cannot be awarded attorney fees against the government entity, regardless of whether the state's defense was deemed frivolous or pursued in bad faith. This significant revision is aimed at clarifying the landscape of legislative procedures in Montana.
The general sentiment around SB 38 appears to lean towards a protective stance for government entities, indicating a focused effort to streamline legislative processes while minimizing the potential financial liabilities associated with legal challenges. However, this could create concerns among advocates for transparency and accountability, who might view the limitation on fee awards as a means to shield government actions from scrutiny. Nonetheless, the bill propelled through a legislative session with a substantial majority, indicating broad support despite possible reservations from certain quarters.
Notable points of contention arise from the implications of restricting attorney fee awards, as critics may argue it diminishes the ability of citizens to challenge governmental overreach effectively. By safeguarding government entities from the financial repercussions associated with litigation failures, there is a fear that this legislation could discourage individuals from pursuing legitimate claims against the state, particularly concerning legislative accountability. The debate here boils down to balancing the need for efficient governance with the necessity of upholding citizen rights in holding governmental bodies accountable.