By Emma White and Clayton Murphy | UM Legislative News Service, University of Montana School of Journalism
HELENA – As the 2025 legislative session hits its halfway mark, the Capitol has been filled with plenty of drama. Two Senate leaders are being investigated for alleged ethics violations over private contracts, another senator pleaded guilty to a DUI, another senator resigned over clashes with lobbyists and a small group of Republicans broke with their party, forming a bipartisan bloc of lawmakers that effectively controlled the fate of several big bills in the Senate.
But amid the chaos, the process of developing the state’s budget, the Legislature’s only constitutionally mandated job, remains on track. Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad and ringmaster of this legislative backbone, said it’s been “situation normal.”
March 7 marked transmittal in the Legislature, the point at which general policy bills either progress or die. The second half of the 90-day session will largely now be dominated by the state’s budget and what it prioritizes and what it leaves out.
Heather O’Laughlin with the Montana Budget and Policy Center agreed that the budget process has been smooth, but added there are still a few questions her organization is watching as the Legislature heads toward the finish line.
“ I think kind of the big question at this stage is where things sit with public health and human services and specifically the executive’s request for behavioral health initiatives,” O’Laughlin said.
That section of the budget is currently about $20 million less than what was originally proposed by Gov. Greg Gianforte. O’Laughlin said that gap could be explained by either general reductions in funding in certain bills or decisions to fund certain programs one-time only.
In the second half of the session, the budget will begin the process used with standard legislation—first committee hearings, then two votes on the floor in the full House and Senate.
Meanwhile, lawmakers will also continue their deliberations on key issues facing the Legislature, including property tax, healthcare, social issues, agriculture, natural resources and a pile of bills that would affect the judicial branch.
Property Tax Emerges As Top Issue
Four big property tax bills continue their journeys through the transmittal deadline at the Montana Legislature, both the two Republican efforts and their Democratic opposition.
House Bill 231, Gianforte’s championed “Homestead Exemption,” has taken most of the spotlight. Carried by Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, the bill would cut property taxes for primary residences. He said the move would cut taxes 17 percent for about 230,000 homeowners. Having passed the House, the Senate will now begin debate on the bill.
The other star Republican effort, Senate Bill 90, would similarly cut primary residence property tax but would fund the cut with revenue from lodging and rental car taxes.
“This is a sales tax paid by tourists,” said the bill’s sponsor, Carl Glimm, R-Kila. “And our constituents have to put up with tourists…we should get some benefit out of that.”
The bill passed the Senate on near-unanimous votes and now heads to the House.
Both Democrat-backed efforts have passed the House on more divided votes. Rep. Jonathan Karlen, D-Missoula, is carrying House Bill 154. The bill aims to attack affordability with a tax credit, offering different cuts to taxpayers depending on their incomes.
“It’s the idea that your income is inherently disconnected from your property tax burden,” Karlen said during a hearing in the House Taxation committee.
House Bill 155, carried by fellow Missoula Democrat Rep. Mark Thane, seeks to apply a similar “homestead exemption” to primary residences as well as a tiered tax system based on property value. Both Democrat-backed bills passed the House on a near two-thirds vote and now face debate in the Senate.
Lawmakers Renew Medicaid Expansion
The decision of whether or not to renew Medicaid expansion has dominated the healthcare conversation at the 2025 Montana Legislature, Aaron Wernham, executive director of the Montana Healthcare Foundation, said.
Medicaid expansion, a program that extends Medicaid eligibility to people who make 138 percent or less of the federal poverty line, has been in place in Montana since 2015. The program was set to sunset in 2025 unless legislators extend it. Rep. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls, has been a longtime champion of Medicaid expansion and this session, is carrying the bill that would continue the program–House Bill 245. HB 245 made it through both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support, and now awaits a signature from the governor.
Wernham said the road to passing Medicaid expansion through the House and Senate could have been much more challenging. The bill to enact a sunset on the program, Senate Bill 62 by Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, went down in the Senate on a 31-19 vote, leaving HB 245 as the Medicaid bill of choice.
“Some people continue to have concerns about the bill, but you know, it passed with sizable majorities in both the House and Senate. And I think, all I can say is, I think that it could have been a more challenging road,” Wernham said.
Wernham said that relatively easy road suggests to him that legislators are recognizing the benefits of Medicaid expansion for the state. He described Medicaid expansion as an “engine” for the healthcare that Montana is able to provide, allowing for rural areas to expand their healthcare services and for more people to receive health insurance coverage.
“My impression overall is that this Legislature has been making decisions in general within an effort to strengthen the health care system,” Wernham said.
Other healthcare bills have been closely linked to debates on social issues this session, with abortion and gender-affirming care often dominating those conversations.
Transgender Bills Progress, Abortion Bills Stall
Since January, a number of bills that seek to define sex as a binary and restrict youth access to gender-affirming care have passed through the House and Senate. These bills deal with restroom use, general definitions of sex, transgender athletes’ participation in sports and gender-affirming care for minors.
House Bill 121, which would require an individual to use the restroom of their sex designated at birth. The bill passed both the House and Senate and awaits signature from the governor.
Senate Bill 437, which defines sex as binary and assigned at birth. The bill passed the Senate with a 31-18 vote and awaits debate in the House.
House Bill 300, which disallows people assigned male at birth from competing in women’s sports. The bill passed the House with a 57-42 vote.
Senate Bill 164, which would change the definition of child abuse and neglect to include helping a child get access to gender-affirming care. SB 164, sponsored by Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, passed the Senate with a 30-20 vote on Feb. 4, and awaits deliberation in the House.
Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings, said the bills about restroom use and women’s sports are an attempt to protect women in their private spaces. She said the progress they have made is supported by the direction of the national Republican party.
“I think especially with the administration, the Trump administration, coming out and saying that we are going to support women in women’s sports, women in women’s private spaces, I think that that has really helped it set a direction and set a pace,” Seekins-Crowe said.
Henry Seaton, a lobbyist from the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, said these efforts are in tune with national politics and that they are an attempt to effectively push the trans community out of public spaces.
“The general theme that I see there is this intent to…basically insinuate this idea that trans people don’t exist,” Seaton said.
Seaton added that he worries about the bills attempting to ban gender-affirming care for minors, since it could add an increased challenge for children who experience gender dysphoria in unsupportive home environments and also penalize parents who attempt to help their children by seeking out that care.
Bills seeking to restrict abortion, on the other hand, have faced much more resistance due to a divide in the Republican party over what the people of Montana really want, according to both Seekins-Crowe and Seaton.
Two bills that attempted to assign responsibility for water contamination from medications used for chemical abortions failed early in the process. Seekins-Crowe carried House Bill 555, which was tabled in committee. Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, carried Senate Bill 479, which failed to pass in the Senate on March 6 with a 25-25 vote. A motion to reconsider the bill failed.
Another bill carried by Seekins-Crowe attempted to criminalize what she called “abortion trafficking,” or the practice of traveling out of state to receive abortion care. House Bill 609 was also tabled in committee.
One bill did pass through the House on March 7, which establishes an annual reporting system for infants born alive after abortion attempts. House Bill 723, sponsored by Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, passed with a 57-42 vote.
Seekins-Crowe said the Republican party is divided on the issue due to CI-128, a ballot initiative that voters passed in November that would enshrine the right to abortion in the Montana Constitution.
“I was seeing some of my colleagues really struggling because they’re not sure what to do with I-128, and it’s one of those issues that I think we as a party need to be very, we need to be very focused as to how we’re going to deal with it in a very holistic manner,” Seekins-Crowe said.
Seaton said he’s seen many of the abortion restriction attempts “losing steam” because of the large margin of support that CI-128 received.
“I think a lot of the legislation being brought forth that tries to restrict the right to an abortion is, it feels pretty reactionary,” Seaton said. “It also feels very antithetical to what the people of Montana have spoken to and want, which is the right to reproductive health care and bodily autonomy and privacy.”
Central to many of these conversations is the question of parental rights, and how much jurisdiction parents should have over what their children are taught. These issues have been also central to the debates about education.
Education Bills Advance to Increase Funds, Parental Involvement
Rob Watson, executive director of the School Administrators of Montana said the Legislature has made considerable progress toward ensuring adequate funding for public school systems. The STARS Act, proposed by Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, is a bill designed to help recruit and retain educators in Montana by raising the starting salary for teachers. This will help make Montana a more desirable place to start a teaching career, Watson said, and help keep teachers from moving out of state for better employment options.
“We have to compete with states like Washington and Utah, which are not too far away, who have starting salaries a lot higher than Montana, and cost of living is cheaper in some of those places,” Watson said. “So it’s hard to compete with states that have higher starting salaries.”
Another piece of that puzzle is House Bill 266, a bill carried by Rep. Luke Muszkiewicz, D-Helena, that would adjust the inflationary increase system that the government uses to determine public school funding. Watson said this bill will help to increase funding to match the level of inflation that Montana has experienced in the past few years.
But Watson also said he worries about the precedent set by bills that attempt to dictate the way things are taught in schools. One bill of note is House Bill 471, sponsored by Rep. Jedediah Hinkle, R-Belgrade, which would heighten parents’ involvement in sex education and identity instruction.
Hinkle said HB 471 would lengthen the notification time required for parents before the discussion of these topics to five to 14 days. It would also require permission from a parent or guardian before a child can be taught identity instruction.
“Human sexuality instruction is basically sex ed, and most people expect their child to be taking a sex ed course,” Hinkle said. “However, parents do not expect their child to be taught topics of gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation, and may have moral, religious or other objections for their child to be exposed to those topics.”
Many legislators who work as teachers spoke in opposition to the bill, including Rep. Melissa Romano, D-Helena, who said this bill will “tie teachers’ hands.”
This bill treats learning about identity and human development as something that must be monitored and restricted, as if these topics are inherently controversial,” Romano said. “But in reality, these conversations arise naturally.”
She said there are many times in a classroom when these conversations could come up, such as when a child draws a picture of their family and shows it to the class. If this bill was enacted, Romano said, it would create a chilling effect in which teachers would hesitate to answer when these questions come up organically..
The session has been wrought with jurisdictional conflicts, like the debate over parental involvement in schools and conflict between the authority of the legislative and judicial branches.
Partisan Judiciary Bills Advance
Power dynamics between the Legislature and the judicial branch have been a hot subject of debate this session and a number of bills regarding partisan elections of judges have advanced.
Legislators heard a slew of bills aimed to address what some see as judicial overreach into legislative affairs. These bills were prepared by the Interim Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, a Republican-led effort to change the Montana Supreme Court, which they argue is left-leaning and oversteps its boundaries into legislative affairs. This committee formed in response to the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to shoot down a number of conservative bills in the past few years.
Democrats, however, argue the actions and goals of the committee are to intercede in the court’s inner workings when the court is functioning as it should. The Democrats elected to the interim committee refused to participate, and the caucus has vocally opposed the bills coming from this committee all session. The Legislature is heavily divided on this issue but both sides agree there is overreach.
Many of the bills from the interim committee have stalled, but efforts to allow partisan labels and funding of judicial candidates are gaining traction including three main bills:
Senate Bill 42, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, would allow for the “partisan election of judges and justices.” This means that judges would be permitted to accept funds and endorsements from political organizations, and they would be elected via partisan ballot. SB 39 awaits judgment in the House after passing the Senate with a 28-22 vote.
Senate Bill 39, sponsored by Sen. Tom Millett, R-Marion, would allow political parties to contribute to judicial candidates. SB 39 passed through both the Senate and the House and awaits a signature from the governor.
Senate Bill 169, also sponsored by Millett, would allow judicial candidates to publicly endorse and make speeches on behalf of political candidates and accept their endorsements and funds. They could also attend partisan events and self-identify with a political party. SB 169 hinges on the approval of SB 39, and it passed the House with a 56-42 vote. The bill has also passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits judgment on the Senate floor.
Supporters of these bills argue it will increase transparency and public awareness about the positions of judicial candidates and decrease out-of-state involvement in Montana’s judicial races.
But Chief Justice Cory Swanson denounced these bills and the work of the interim committee in his address to the Montana Legislature in February and asked the legislature to stop interfering with the judiciary’s ability to do its job. His remarks, which he made clear were his own opinion alone, surprised many, given that he was considered to be the candidate backed by Republican interests during the election.
Ag Proposals: Tax Classification and Water Rights on State Land
Agriculture has been a relatively quiet topic this session, save for a large change to automatic property tax exemptions for agricultural land. House Bill 27 aims to ease the property tax burden by disallowing large, non-productive swaths of land like trophy ranches from automatically qualifying for the state’s lower agricultural property tax rate.
The bill had a difficult first hearing in committee—many worried about unintended consequences for subsistence farmers and agrotourism operations. However, after being amended, the bill finally passed out of committee in mid-February and now awaits a hearing on the House floor.
Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage, is carrying a water rights bill that he said is “much needed for the agriculture community.”
House Bill 676 would prohibit the state from taking the water rights of wells drilled on leased state land.
“What we’ve seen in recent history is that the land board and the state have taken private water rights from Montana farmers and ranchers and Montana citizens and converted them into state water rights,” Ler said. “The state didn’t pay for the well.”
Ler said if the bill isn’t passed, nobody is going to want to pay for wells to improve state land. Rep. Alanah Griffith, D-Big Sky, opposed the bill. She said the state owns that water and the bill would thereby be unconstitutional.
Ler’s bill passed the Senate 56-43 and has been transmitted to the Senate for further debate.
Clayton Murphy and Emma White are reporters with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association, the Montana Newspaper Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. Murphy can be reached at clayton.murphy@umconnect.umt.edu. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu.
