Missoula County opposes SB 370: Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for hearing tomorrow morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Missoula County opposes SB 370: Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for hearing tomorrow morning in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee. Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Missoula County opposes SB 370: Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for second reading on the Senate floor this afternoon.
Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Missoula County opposes SB 370, Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, heard Wednesday, March 24, in the House Judiciary Committee.
Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Missoula County opposes SB 370, Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for second reading this morning on the House floor.
Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Senators Sands and Bennett,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 370: Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for hearing tomorrow morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Please oppose SB 370.
Sent March 10:
ReplyDeleteSenators Boldman, Morigeau and Salomon,
Missoula County opposes SB 370: Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for hearing tomorrow morning in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee. Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Please oppose SB 370.
Senators,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 370: Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for second reading on the Senate floor this afternoon.
Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Please oppose SB 370.
Sent March 25:
ReplyDeleteRepresentative France and Tenenbaum,
Missoula County opposes SB 370, Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, heard Wednesday, March 24, in the House Judiciary Committee.
Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Please oppose SB 370.
Representatives,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 370, Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency, up for second reading this morning on the House floor.
Creating a new cause of action allowing damages and attorneys’ fees recovery relating to a claim that a person’s rights during a time of emergency are interfered with in addition to the myriad of constitutional claims already available to plaintiffs would likely result in significant local government resources spent on defending such claims, whether with or without merit, as opposed to directing limited local resources to responding to the emergency at hand. If a person believes their fundamental rights are being violated by a local government’s response to an emergency, there are existing options that provide them redress, as we have seen in lawsuits filed relating to COVID-19 response. Creating an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in civil actions under state law, and creating a damages cause of action in such circumstances, is a solution in search of a problem, because existing avenues for redress already exist under state and federal law, including a federal section 1983 claim in which attorneys’ fees are recoverable.
Additionally, the bill puts elections administrators in difficult positions of weighing staff safety with potential liability. We proved in the last election that we can make modifications to elections that address existing public emergency concerns without compromising election integrity in a way that keeps the election staff and volunteers safe. It would further drain local resources tasked with administering an election to defend claims that any needed modifications to election processes are a violation of this statute. As we saw this last election, existing avenues for judicial challenge to election procedures are available at the state and federal level for individuals who feel their election-related rights are implicated.
Please oppose SB 370.