Montana House Legislators Defeat Bill that Would Have Broadened Lethal Injection Methods

On January 30, 2025, the Montana House of Representatives reject­ed by a vote of 51 – 49 House Bill 205 (HB 205), which would have mod­i­fied the state’s lethal injec­tion pro­to­col. The bill sought to remove lan­guage in the Montana lethal injec­tion pro­to­col that requires the use of an ​“ultra-fast act­ing” drug in com­bi­na­tion with a ​“chem­i­cal par­a­lyt­ic agent” and replace it with broad­er ter­mi­nol­o­gy that would allow for the use of any ​“sub­stance or sub­stances in a lethal quan­ti­ty suf­fi­cient to cause death.” Representative Shannon Maness (R), a co-spon­sor of HB 205, said it was intend­ed to address a 2015 rul­ing from District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock that effec­tive­ly halt­ed exe­cu­tions in Montana. Judge Sherlock ruled the state’s planned use of pen­to­bar­bi­tal did not meet the ​“ultra-fast act­ing” require­ment as out­lined by state law, there­by inval­i­dat­ing Montana’s lethal injec­tion execution protocol.

H.B. 205 faced oppo­si­tion dur­ing com­mit­tee hear­ings, with orga­ni­za­tions includ­ing the ACLU of Montana, the Montana Innocence Project, and reli­gious lead­ers express­ing seri­ous con­cerns about the bill’s lack of speci­fici­ty regard­ing poten­tial exe­cu­tion drugs. During a floor debate ahead of the vote, Representative Zach Wirth (R) said he could not sup­port the bill for moral rea­sons, call­ing him­self pro-life from ​“the womb to the tomb.” Rep. Wirth added, ​“as repug­nant as the crimes can be, I still can­not sup­port the death penal­ty.” Representative Bill Mercer (R), speak­ing in sup­port of the bill, argued Montana’s author­i­ty to car­ry out exe­cu­tions was ham­strung with­out chang­ing the lan­guage in the state protocol. 

During a January 21, 2025, com­mit­tee hear­ing, Rep. Maness, the only mem­ber to speak in favor of HB 205 that day, argued it would allow for more lat­i­tude in drug selec­tion and would thus allow exe­cu­tions to resume. Don Cape of the Coalition for Safety and Justice, which is not opposed to the death penal­ty, expressed con­cern that the bill lack speci­fici­ty about what drugs would be allowed in lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions, and that this would force the state into lengthy and expen­sive lit­i­ga­tion. Responding to this line of ques­tions, Rep. Maness said he did not know what drugs would be allowed, adding, ​“the Department of Justice or what­ev­er depart­ment can use the drugs avail­able at the time.”

The January 21 hear­ing also touched on the risk of lit­i­ga­tion, cost esti­mates, and the views of vic­tims. ACLU of Montana Legal Director Alex Rate tes­ti­fied dur­ing the January 21 hear­ing and warned the bill’s broad lan­guage could allow for the use of sub­stances like ​“antifreeze, rat poi­son, and cyanide,” call­ing it a ​“poster child” for lit­i­ga­tion. Addressing con­cerns about costs, Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections, Eric Strauss, explained acquir­ing exe­cu­tion drugs had pre­vi­ous­ly cost the state more than $100,000 and not­ed for com­par­i­son that the cost of exe­cu­tion drugs in neigh­bor­ing Idaho and Utah have risen to more than $200,000. DPI’s Robin Maher tes­ti­fied in front of the com­mit­tee and pre­sent­ed facts and infor­ma­tion about exe­cu­tions and answered ques­tions from com­mit­tee mem­bers. Reverend Susan DeVree, a retired paster and ranch­er from Helena, whose child was the vic­tim on a mur­der 35 years ago, was also among those who spoke out against the bill. 

The last exe­cu­tion in Montana was car­ried out in 2006. Currently, two indi­vid­u­als remain on death row in Montana, which has exe­cut­ed three peo­ple since 1976.