Summary#

Montana House Resolution No. 9 is a resolution, not a bill that creates or amends a law. It failed, so it did not take effect. Its stated goal was to seek pardons for Derek Chauvin and call for investigations into his prosecutions and the return of a Minneapolis settlement.

• It urged President Trump to grant Chauvin a full pardon for federal convictions related to George Floyd’s death.
• It urged Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to grant Chauvin a full pardon for state convictions related to the death.
• It called on Congress and the Minnesota Legislature to begin an independent investigation into the prosecutions. It did not create an investigation or set rules for one.
• It urged Minneapolis to demand the return of the $27 million settlement paid to Floyd’s family. It did not order the city or family to return money.
• If adopted, it would have directed Montana’s Secretary of State to send copies to named officials and parties.

What it means for you#

• Montana residents: No legal rights, duties, or public services changed. Because the resolution failed, Montana did not adopt these requests as its House position.
• Chauvin: The resolution did not pardon him or change his convictions.
• Minneapolis and Floyd’s family: The resolution did not require the city to seek repayment or require the family to return the settlement.
• Public officials: No one was required to investigate the prosecutions.

Money#

No cost estimate is included in the available material.

• The resolution describes a $27 million settlement as already paid and asks Minneapolis to demand its return. It provides no process for recovering that money.
• It does not appropriate money or set out funding for an investigation.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set out how an investigation would be started, what it would examine, who would conduct it, or when it would report.
• It does not explain how Minneapolis could seek the settlement’s return or what would happen if the city did so.
• It does not provide evidence or a process for assessing its claims of misconduct, bias, or political pressure. Those claims are the resolution’s stated views, not findings established by the resolution.

Case for#

• The resolution appears intended to address concerns about whether Chauvin’s prosecutions were fair.
• A possible argument for seeking an independent investigation is that it could examine allegations of misconduct or outside pressure.
• The resolution’s approach treats clemency as a way to address what it views as potentially unjust convictions.

Case against#

• The resolution presents claims about the prosecutions and the settlement as reasons for action, but creates no process to test those claims.
• It asks for pardons covering both federal and state convictions without setting out a review of the evidence or a decision process.
• It urges Minneapolis to seek repayment but gives no method for doing so.
• As a Montana House resolution, it could not itself make the President, Minnesota officials, Congress, or Minneapolis carry out its requests.