Montana

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Hemp: the green crop tied down by red tape in the US

      by

      Hemp: the green crop tied down by red tape in the USStalky plant is not approved as a livestock feed, holding back a sustainable industry that could invigorate agricultureKen Elliott runs a hemp oilseed and fiber processing facility in Fort Benton, Montana. His company, IND Hemp, grinds up the stalky plant so that it can be used for a variety of purposes, such as snacks, grain, insulation and paper. About 20 truckloads of spent biomass lie in heaps on his property.Elliott estimates he could make a couple million dollars if he sold this leftover stuff as livestock feed. Hemp seedcake would make a great substitute for alfalfa – rich in fatty acids, proteins and fiber. His cattle rancher buddies are hit hard by the soaring costs of hay and would love to get their hands on this alternative. One buffalo herder wanted to buy the whole lot.But Elliot can’t sell to them. He can’t even give it away for free. That’s because when the 2018 Farm Bill took hemp off the list of controlled substances, hemp as commercial livestock feed was not approved.‘Filling in the gaps’ for food access: women-run farms rethink California agricultureRead moreThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hempseed and its meal and oil for human consumption. A variety of hemp snacks for pets are allowed on the market, because they don’t constitute the main part of the diet. But you can’t give hemp as feed to farm animals that produce eggs, meat and milk for sale, until tests prove it is safe and nutritious to pass along the food chain.In other words, Elliott can serve hemp products to his baby grandchild. Or to a cat. But not to 2,000lbs steer. And that’s bad for the American farmer, he says. “Some of these guys have to sell their cattle and five-generation farms because they can’t afford hay and barley,” Elliott says. “Why wouldn’t you want to help them?”Hemp industry advocates say this ban on livestock feed not only denies livestock farmers necessary relief, but is also denying the $80bn American feed sector an inexpensive product during a time of global grain shortages. And it is hindering a nascent green industry that could invigorate American agriculture while also saving the environment.The type of hemp in question is not the flowery plant that yields CBD. The bamboo-like “industrial” variety processed by Elliott has greater potential to be a commodity. Its woody core, grain (seeds) and fiber have 25,000 uses. They include dietary ingredients, textiles, biofuel, bioplastics, mulch, lubricants, paints and construction materials.Industrial hemp is also a dream sustainable crop. It requires less water than similar plants and sequesters carbon. It can grow in nearly every climate, with up to two harvests a year. Hemp also regenerates the soil, absorbs toxic metals and it resists pests, mold and fire.But this sector is stymied by the federal government’s linkage of hemp to its cousin, marijuana. Both come from the cannabis sativa plant, but industrial hemp has none or negligible quantities of tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, the main psychoactive compound in marijuana.Nonetheless, hemp is highly regulated. Growers must be fingerprinted and background-checked. They must spend thousands of dollars for tests that prove their harvests contain less than 0.3% THC. Anything above that fraction must be destroyed.Further burdens are placed on those seeking approvals for commercial hemp livestock feed. (So far none have been granted on the federal level.) Manufacturers complain that with only a dozen FDA officials processing requests, applicants can wait up to six months for a response or for questions, which when answered require further waits. The process can take years.“The FDA responds to requests with very resistant language that creates a long back and forth,” says Andrew Bish, a harvesting equipment entrepreneur from Nebraska who helms the Hemp Feed Coalition advocacy group. He added that funding the clinical trials to prove safety can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.Moreover, separate testing must be done for each species that would eat the feed. Data involving dairy cows, for instance, won’t suffice for beef cattle. Different research is required for chicken broilers and egg layers, and trout versus salmon.The FDA approval group is “woefully understaffed with a backlog of work”, Leah Wilkinson told a webinar in August that brought together regulators, hemp companies and university researchers. She is the vice-president of public policy at the American Feed Industry Association.“Many of these ingredients are stuck in an antiquated regulatory review process at the FDA, which has resulted in the US trailing its global competitors in bringing these products to the market.”Regulators on both the state and federal levels defend the process, however. They say animals metabolize food differently from humans, so a person snacking on hemp seeds might process the ingredient differently than a goat subsisting on it every day.“I understand the processors’ standpoint,” says Ian Foley, a plant regulatory official with Montana’s department of agriculture. “It’s a difficult burden to sponsor and pay for research. But the product must be beneficial as well as not cause harm. Everyone wants the safest ingredients, and I don’t think we’re there just yet.”While the US government treats hemp as a new product, it was historically a staple crop in America from the 1600s onwards, thriving especially in Kentucky. George Washington grew it. A draft of the Declaration of Independence was on hemp paper. But the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act debilitated the once-thriving industry, and then the 1970 Controlled Substances Act essentially killed it.With decriminalization five years ago, the industry had to jumpstart from scratch.This has cost the US market share in a global market estimated at more $4bn and expected to grow to over $17bn by 2030. Canada, China and Europe (particularly France) are big players. The US produced merely $824m worth of hemp in 2021, the last available figures.Stakeholders say that the animal feed issue is particularly stymying the industry.The only way around stringent federal restrictions is to win consent on the regional level, but the products cannot be transported or sold across state lines. Kentucky has approved feeding hemp-seed meal and oil to chickens and horses. In Montana, it can be given to non-production animals. Tennessee requires informing consumers in writing if hemp adulterants are added to feed.‘When in doubt, plant a nut tree’: the push to seed America with chestnutsRead moreThe Wenger Group of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, managed to get state approval to sell feed for chickens. Wenger, which produces about 2m tons of feed a year, first had to invest $400,000 to do a hemp feed study on the nearby Kreider Farms involving 800 hens and 120,000 eggs.The data found that hemp feed produced healthy yolks and weight, with no THC residue. “It was absolutely compelling and convincing that the ingredient was safe,” says Raj Kasula, the chief nutrition officer for Wenger.But getting the green light to sell was “unduly” time-consuming. “The process was delayed by objections and questions which were not worth the delay,” Kasula says. “Each time they come with a new set of questions. To their credit they are being very thorough but it’s a source of frustration.”Still, experts see hopeful baby steps and believe the first federal approval for egg-laying hens might come within a year.The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has granted millions of dollars for clinical studies into hemp as animal feed through its National Institute of Food and Agriculture office.Panelists participating in the August webinar included scientists from universities across the country, including Texas, North Dakota, Ohio and Kentucky. They saw great potential for livestock, horses and fish.“I was blown away,” said Massimo Bionaz, an associate professor of dairy nutrigenomics at Oregon State University. “It has good fiber content, the protein is at the level of alfalfa, even better. We found it’s safe to feed this to animals.”Even if it won approvals for feed, the hemp industry must convince farms farmers to grow industrial hemp, says Bish. After the 2018 legalization, most hemp growers planted the CBD type. Many went bust due to an ensuing glut and are reluctant to pivot to industrial hemp even though it has more potential as a cash crop.How America’s most enigmatic fruit is making a comebackRead moreOne reason is the paucity of processing facilities. What with soaring freight costs, the handful of facilities that are scattered across the country lie too far away for most farmers to transport the bulky product. Prospective processors baulk at investing in multimillion-dollar machinery without enough raw supply of hemp.“It’s a chicken and egg story, so there’s no economy of scale,” says Bish.Hemp stakeholders are pinning hopes on Congress, which is due to renew the Farm Bill this year. They are lobbying for exemptions to make it easier to produce hemp fiber and grain, such as lifting the 0.3% THC limit. They also seek more Congressional funding to boost the number of FDA staff processing feed applications.Meanwhile, progress remains glacial. “I would like to see more collaboration between the FDA and the industry to come up with clear guidelines to make the application process more efficient,” says Kasula. “Other countries are moving forward, and we need to reinvent the wheel.”TopicsAgricultureCannabisUS politicsMontanafeaturesReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Five States Have Abortion Referendums on the Ballot

      by

      The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June at first appeared like it might change Democratic fortunes in this year’s midterm elections, giving the party an energizing issue even as inflation remained high and President Biden’s approval ratings remained low.That momentum was clear in August, when voters in deep-red Kansas rejected a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would have allowed legislators to enact abortion restrictions.But Republicans have gained an edge as voters have expressed concern about the inflation and the economy. Democrats are bracing for a red wave in the House, and control of the Senate hinges on close contests.Even so, abortion remained a hot-button topic heading into Election Day. Races for governor and legislature in several states could have implications for future abortion legislation. And in five states, abortion is directly on the ballot.Here are the states where abortion referendums will be decided on Election Day.MichiganMichigan’s Reproductive Freedom For All proposal would protect the right to make decisions about “all matters relating to pregnancy” in the state, where a 1931 law that would make abortion illegal was blocked from taking effect by a court ruling earlier this fall.The proposal would allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, which is usually around 24 weeks, except in cases where abortions are medically necessary to protect the “physical or mental health” of the woman. The 1931 law does not include exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother, and it threatens doctors who perform the procedure with up to 15 years in prison. CaliforniaVoters will decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. Separately, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has urged Hollywood companies to stop filming in states like Oklahoma and Georgia, where stricter abortion laws are in place, and recently signed a package of 12 bills meant to strengthen abortion rights in the state, where the procedure is permitted up to fetal viability.KentuckyKentucky voters will be asked to approve a revision to the state Constitution to make clear it does not protect the right to abortion. It is a safeguard against potential legal challenges to the state’s existing law restricting abortion, which went into effect over the summer.MontanaThe ballot initiative won’t affect typical abortion access in the state, where the procedure is permitted until viability or if necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the mother.Rather, the measure would require mandatory medical interventions to save those the state defines as “born-alive” infants — which can include fetuses diagnosed as nonviable — and establish criminal penalties for health care providers who refuse to intervene.VermontThe Reproductive Liberty Amendment, if enacted, would enshrine the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. Abortion is already legal in the state, without a time limit, and that will continue even if the amendment fails.Lauren McCarthy More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Plan B for Democrats Living in Red States

      by

      BOZEMAN, Mont. — Before we get to the point, keep in mind that during Montana’s recent primary election, in the Second Congressional District race in Garfield County — a stretch of eastern badlands and prairie nearly the size of Connecticut — 14 Democrats voted. Then again, maybe that is the point.After the 2020 census, Montana regained the second House seat it lost 30 years ago. Here in the western mountains where I live, the First District could be competitive for Democrats if the college towns and Indian reservations can outflank clumps of Trumpists and armed Christian separatists. But when I asked Dorothy Bradley — a Democratic icon since she got elected to the state legislature as a 23-year-old in 1970 — about the Second District, she replied point blank, “A Democrat can’t win in eastern Montana.”She is, however, floating a Plan B. In April, Ms. Bradley invited to the Capitol in Helena her opponent in the 1992 gubernatorial race, Marc Racicot, the two-term governor and former chair of the Republican National Committee. In the contest for the House seat in the eastern district, they endorsed an independent, Gary Buchanan, who is running against Montana’s current at-large representative, Republican Matt Rosendale. The Bradley-Racicot endorsement was a singular milestone in Montana politics, as if the C.E.O.s of Pepsi and Coke called a truce to sell some Dr. Pepper.President Biden’s plea to rational Republicans and independents to vote for Democrats in the midterms, as a ploy to root out authoritarian Republican extremists, could persuade the already persuadable. But winning the popular and electoral votes in 2020 does not change the fact that he lost in about 2,500 of the nation’s 3,000 or so counties. While the Republican Party spurns observable reality, the Democratic Party has alienated most of the continent (which is also unrealistic in a republic if governing is the goal). In landscapes where, as former Senator Conrad Burns described eastern Montana, there is “a lot of dirt between light bulbs,” defending pluralist democracy might require a pluralist task force. Realistic Democrats allying with Republican defectors and the unaffiliated to elect civic-minded independents could look like the bipartisan coalition backing Mr. Buchanan and an experiment south of here in Utah.The Utah Democratic Party decided not to field a U.S. Senate candidate and instead endorsed the independent Evan McMullin, a former C.I.A. officer who ran for president in 2016, to oppose Mike Lee, who initially supported Donald Trump’s claims of a stolen election. That was a stirring, patriotic feat. Still, what did they have to lose? The last Democrat to win the Senate in Utah was born in 1911 and lost to Orrin Hatch in 1976.These independents overlap in ways that could be instructive in future races — levelheaded centrists with establishment support and a sense of place running against mortifying Republican oddballs in regions where Democrats are pariahs. And while Mr. Buchanan has raised about twice as much money as his Democratic opponent, the fact that Mr. McMullin doesn’t have a Democrat to contend with has helped propel him to a statistical tie with Senator Lee, according to a Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll.No responsible American can vote for congressional Republicans — with few exceptions, like Senator Lisa Murkowski — for the foreseeable future because of the threat that party poses to orderly elections. Montana’s Representative Rosendale, who voted against certifying the 2020 election results, personifies that threat.Mr. Buchanan, who owns an investment advisory firm in Billings, made a last-minute decision to run for the House after Mr. Rosendale voted against a bipartisan resolution titled “Supporting the People of Ukraine.”How do you know if your representative is not the least bit representative? When the House votes 426-3, and yours is among the three.Mr. Buchanan described that vote as the moment “when embarrassment became shame.” It’s worth noting that our right-wing governor, Greg Gianforte, was so offended by the invasion, he started immediately divesting the state’s Russian assets, proclaiming, “Montana stands with Ukraine.” It’s such a near-unanimous position that even I will stand with my journalist-clobbering governor, though I will be 10 yards away wearing my dad’s welding helmet.Pondering Representative Rosendale’s peculiar record (he was also in the minority when the House voted 394-18 to support Sweden and Finland joining NATO), Mr. Racicot summarized his disapproval: “These aren’t necessarily moral judgments. These are almost mathematical judgments.”Though I voted for Dorothy Bradley in 1992, I do find Mr. Racicot, as a former R.N.C. chair who publicly endorsed Joe Biden for president, to be a reliable sherpa in ascending to the ideal of country above party.“I don’t care about the things that are debatable, that thoughtful people can argue about and come to different conclusions,” he told me. “What I care about is betraying the country and betraying the democracy.” Because of fidelity to the Constitution, he argues that “a lot of people are to the point where they can finally say: ‘You know what, I’m not a Democrat first. I’m not a Republican first.’”A man in a bar recently asked Mr. Buchanan if he’s an F.B.I. agent or a Mormon. He looks like he served as Montana’s first Department of Commerce director in the early 1980s. Sounds dull, yet those were desperate years, when much of the old Montana up and died — the Butte copper mine, the Great Falls refinery and the Anaconda smelter shut down, and the farm crisis incited hundreds of farmers in Montana and the Midwest to take their own lives. Mr. Buchanan oversaw “Build Montana,” a program focused on beefing up what’s now the economic pillar of tourism. He created the still ubiquitous “Made in Montana” label to promote homegrown products, a marketing ploy I fall for every time I face life’s jelly and jam dilemmas. Endangered fossil fuel towns might appreciate his experience with tough transitions. And his fealty to the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution, which guarantees abortion rights (for now), provides an alternative to Representative Rosendale’s rigid opposition.Mr. Buchanan told me that when he’s out campaigning in the eastern district, he meets Montanans who have never heard of the category of independent, but they instantly see themselves in that word. More than 40 percent of Americans identify as independents, according to a Gallup poll — the biggest bloc in the country, outnumbering either party. That figure should shame both parties’ leaders into deep self-reflection.When I saw photos of Mr. Racicot and Ms. Bradley standing beside Mr. Buchanan for endorsement, my first reaction was relief that there might be a plausible home remedy to Representative Rosendale and his ilk. Last month, in Livingston, I noticed about a dozen Buchanan yard signs and zero for his major party opponents. I know hardcore liberals in Helena and the Shields Valley who plan to vote for him.While I wish I could reach a comforting conclusion about the improvised communities bucking up these western independents for the greater good, partisans putting aside heartfelt differences is not necessarily a sign of hope but a warning that the two-party system has failed them. Congress is supposed to compromise, not voters.Sarah Vowell is the author of, among other books, “Lafayette in the Somewhat United States” and the producer of an oral history of the Montana Constitutional Convention of 1972.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Zinke Is Accused of Misleading Interior Dept. Investigators in Casino Inquiry

      by

      Ryan Zinke, a former interior secretary during the Trump administration, intentionally misled investigators looking into his department’s decision not to act on two Native American tribes’ requests to open a new casino in Connecticut, the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Mr. Zinke, who served as interior secretary from 2017 to 2019, is now the Republican nominee for a congressional seat in Montana. He is widely expected to win the general election this November.The 44-page report on Wednesday focused not on the casino decision itself — litigation over that was resolved separately — but on whether Mr. Zinke and his former chief of staff had been honest about it.Extensive efforts by unnamed lobbyists to persuade Mr. Zinke not to approve the tribes’ applications, as well as conversations between Mr. Zinke and an unnamed senator, are described in the report. It says that, in interviews with investigators, Mr. Zinke denied having significant conversations with the lobbyists and stated repeatedly that he had decided not to approve the tribes’ applications based on advice from the Interior Department’s Office of the Solicitor. But lawyers in that office told the investigators that they had never spoken directly with Mr. Zinke.A lawyer for Mr. Zinke, Danny C. Onorato, said in a statement that Mr. Zinke had “cooperated fully in a politically motivated investigation.”More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsAug. 23 Primaries: The Democratic establishment in Florida and New York had a good night. Here are some key takeaways and a rundown of who won and who lost.The Evidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s increasingly hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a special election in New York’s Hudson Valley is the latest example.Bruising Fights in N.Y.: A string of ugly primaries played out across the state, as Democrats and Republicans fought over rival personalities and the ideological direction of their parties.Challenging DeSantis: Florida Democrats chose Representative Charlie Crist, a former Republican, to take on Gov. Ron DeSantis, setting up a contest between a centrist and a hard-right G.O.P. incumbent.“Secretary Zinke repeatedly told the inspector general that he was not subject to any influence in that matter because he lacked jurisdiction to act on the application,” Mr. Onorato said. “That should have ended the inquiry. Instead, on the eve of an election, the I.G. has released a misleading and inaccurate report that suggested Secretary Zinke lacked candor in his interview with I.G. agents. That is wrong.”The report said it would be “a fair reading of Secretary Zinke’s statements” to conclude that he had based his decision about the casino request on the advice of lawyers for the Office of the Solicitor and that “he was not influenced by the considerations or recommendations of third parties.”“Given the number and extent of communications with these outside personnel, combined with the absence of information that anyone — counsel or otherwise — within the agency advised this course of action, we find that Secretary Zinke’s description of events was not accurate,” the report continued. It characterized Mr. Zinke and his chief of staff as not complying “with their duty of candor when questioned.”Mr. Zinke’s former chief of staff was not named in the report. A person who held that position did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent through the organization he currently works for.“Lack of candor” is defined in the report as “a broader and more flexible concept” than falsification, emphasizing that it does not necessarily require intent to deceive. Rather, it requires proof that a person “gave incorrect or incomplete information” and “did so knowingly.”Wednesday’s report is a final, revised version of a draft report that Mr. Zinke was given an opportunity to respond to; his response was included in the final version. The Office of Inspector General submitted its initial findings in 2018 to the Justice Department, which declined to file charges in 2021. The office said in the final report that it would provide it to the current interior secretary, Deb Haaland, “for any action deemed appropriate.”Mr. Zinke has been the subject of multiple ethics investigations related to his actions as interior secretary. Earlier this year, the Office of Inspector General found that he had improperly participated in negotiations about a real estate project in Whitefish, Mont., and then lied to investigators about his involvement.Before becoming interior secretary, Mr. Zinke represented Montana’s at-large congressional district from 2015 to 2017. He is now running in the First District, newly drawn after Montana gained a seat in the 2020 census. Three major election forecasters — the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball — all rate the race as “likely Republican,” and a fourth, FiveThirtyEight, rates it as “solid Republican.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Next Front Line in the Abortion Wars: State Supreme Courts

      by

      Court challenges to sweeping rollbacks of abortion rights must go through state supreme courts, many of which have been shaped by years of conservative activism.WASHINGTON — Fresh from the political thicket of the United States Supreme Court, the struggle over abortion is now moving to venues that are poised to become the next front line in the country’s partisan warfare: state supreme courts.In Florida, seven justices appointed by Republican governors will decide whether the State Constitution’s explicit right to privacy, which protected abortion rights in past rulings, remains a precedent. In Michigan, a court with a 4-3 majority of Democratic nominees has been asked to conclude whether a 91-year-old law banning abortions is constitutional. In Kentucky, a decision on a ban on almost all abortions appears bound to a Supreme Court composed largely of nonpartisan elected justices.In those states and others, the federal reversal of Roe v. Wade tosses one of the nation’s most politically explosive issues into courtrooms that, until recently, had operated mostly beneath the radar of national politics.The increasing political pressure on justices — and the rightward drift of some courts — suggests that options for abortion rights advocates to soften the impact of the federal abortion ruling may be limited. It also reflects how partisan politics is emerging as a driving force in how some justices rule.Abortion rights protesters gathered at the Florida Supreme Court in May.Kenny Hill/USA TODAY NETWORKOver the past decade or so, the national Republican Party and other conservative groups have spent heavily to move both state legislatures and courts rightward. The party’s Judicial Fairness Initiative says it has spent more than $21 million since its formation in 2014 to elect conservatives to state courts, and will spend more than $5 million this year. The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group that has been a principal backer of recent Republican nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, also has invested money in state supreme court races.The Democratic Party has also poured growing sums of money into court elections, as have allies like labor unions — but not as much, and not for as long, as have Republicans. But the rightward lurch of federal courts increasingly is leading progressives to see state courts as potential bulwarks against more conservative gains, said Joshua A. Douglas, an elections and voting rights scholar at the University of Kentucky.The right’s focus on the courts could pay off handsomely in legal battles over abortion, according to Douglas Keith, an expert on state judicial issues at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.Consider Iowa, whose Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the due process clause in the State Constitution guaranteed a right to abortion. Aided by an advertising campaign financed by the Judicial Crisis Network, the General Assembly then revised the judicial nominee process, handing more control to the governor, Kim Reynolds.Gov. Kim Reynolds has turned the Iowa Supreme Court into a conservative bastion.Nick Rohlman/The Gazette, via Associated PressMs. Reynolds, a Republican, turned the court into a conservative bastion. Last month, a week before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Iowa justices reversed their own 2018 ruling on abortion.Montana also recognizes a constitutional right to abortion. In the nonpartisan primary election last month for one of its Supreme Court’s seven seats, both the Judicial Fairness Initiative and the state Republican Party spent money to ensure that a candidate endorsed by abortion opponents, James Brown, would oppose an incumbent judge, Ingrid Gustafson, in November. Ms. Gustafson was nominated to the bench in 2017 by the governor at the time, Steve Bullock, a Democrat.The reversal of abortion rights in Iowa “is not the last one we might see,” Mr. Keith said. “The lack of attention that these courts have gotten from the left, comparatively, is going to come home to roost.”From Opinion: The End of Roe v. WadeCommentary by Times Opinion writers and columnists on the Supreme Court’s decision to end ​​the constitutional right to abortion.David N. Hackney, maternal-fetal medicine specialist: The end of Roe “is a tragedy for our patients, many of whom will suffer and some of whom could very well die.”Mara Gay: “Sex is fun. For the puritanical tyrants seeking to control our bodies, that’s a problem.”Elizabeth Spiers: “The notion that rich women will be fine, regardless of what the law says, is probably comforting to some. But it is simply not true.”Katherine Stewart, writer: “​​Breaking American democracy isn’t an unintended side effect of Christian nationalism. It is the point of the project.”A major test looms in Florida, where the State Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares that “every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life.”The Florida Supreme Court previously cited that explicit guarantee of privacy in striking down laws that restricted access to abortion. That precedent now appears endangered.In 2019, the last three justices who had been nominated by a Democratic governor retired. Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has made opposition to abortion a centerpiece of a possible presidential campaign, replaced them with conservatives.From voting rights to redistricting, the State Supreme Court has ruled reliably in support of conservatives in recent years. Daniel A. Smith, a University of Florida political scientist who watches the court, said he believed that was unlikely to change.“I think the U.S. Supreme Court is sending a signal to justices in state high courts that precedent no longer matters,” he said. Dr. Smith predicted that the constitutional guarantee of privacy “will be whittled away” when the state court makes its abortion ruling.Attorney General Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, a Republican, on Sunday asked the State Supreme Court to issue an emergency order suspending a lower court decision allowing the state’s only abortion provider to remain open. The court denied the request on Tuesday.In elections to the State Supreme Court this fall, State Representative Joseph Fischer, perhaps the Legislature’s leading opponent of abortion, is running to unseat Michelle M. Keller, who was appointed to the court in 2013 by Steve Beshear, a Democrat who was then the governor.State Representative Randy Bridges gave a thumbs down as protesters chanted “bans off our bodies” at the Kentucky State Capitol in April.Ryan C. Hermens/Lexington Herald-Leader, via Associated PressNational political parties and interest groups will focus their money and attention this fall on state supreme courts in four states — Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio — where elections could flip the courts’ majority from Democratic to Republican or vice versa. But other states could be in play.Six of seven justices on the Democratic-led Supreme Court in Kansas must stand for retention elections, and some are likely to become targets of Republicans infuriated by the court’s ruling in 2019 that abortion is a constitutional right. Arkansas Republicans are backing a former chairman of the state party against a Democratic incumbent justice in an effort to scrub remaining moderates from the already conservative court.Even more than abortion, the focus on state courts has reflected the politics of redistricting, particularly after a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that left oversight of partisan gerrymanders to state legislatures and courts. National Republicans say changing state supreme courts is the only way to stop Democrats from gaining power by successfully suing to overturn gerrymandered Republican political maps, a strategy they mockingly call “sue till it’s blue.”“If Republicans and conservatives want to control the redistricting process, then winning control of state legislatures is not enough. You also need to control the supreme courts,” said Andrew Romeo, a spokesman for the Republican State Leadership Committee.Kelly Burton, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which has backed many of those suits, said the battle was more about stopping a creeping autocracy than about changing political boundaries.“It’s about voting rights cases,” she said. “It’s about fights over access to abortion. And fundamentally, we’re trying to protect these courts as neutral arbiters, while Republicans want to make them less independent and more partisan.”Some justices say they feel caught in the middle as partisan pressures surge.Maureen O’Connor, a Republican who is chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, was threatened with impeachment by some in her party this spring after she voted with Democratic justices to strike down political maps gerrymandered by Republicans.To some people, she said, her vote on redistricting “shows integrity and independence and respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. To others, I am a traitor.”Chief Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court has campaigned for years to scrap the state’s system of partisan elections for judicial positions.Robert Daemmrich Photography Inc/Corbis via Getty ImagesNathan Hecht, the chief justice of the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, has campaigned for years to scrap the state’s system of partisan elections for judicial positions. “Texas has one of the stupidest systems in the world,” he said, and he worries that growing partisanship will make it even worse.Still, he said he thought there was a good chance that as divisive issues like abortion “devolve down to the states, the states will find ways to reach a middle ground that federal lawmakers have not been able to find.” But he added, “I’m not going to bet on that.”On Friday, the Texas court lifted a lower-court freeze on a 1925 law that bans abortions and holds out the prospect of imprisonment for those who provide them. A full hearing on the law will be held later.Sheelagh McNeill More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Montana could soon allow grizzly bear hunting for first time in decades

      by

      Montana could soon allow grizzly bear hunting for first time in decadesWildlife commissioners signed onto a multi-state plan as states in the northern Rockies push to ease federal protections Montana wildlife officials could soon allow grizzly bear hunting in areas around Glacier and Yellowstone national parks, if states in the US northern Rockies succeed in their attempts to lift federal protections for the animals.Grizzlies in the region have been protected as a threatened species since 1975 and were shielded from hunting for most of that time. But several states are pushing for restrictions to be eased.Montana governor Greg Gianforte last month announced the state intends to petition the Biden administration to lift threatened species protections for Glacier-area grizzlies. Wyoming governor Mark Gordon is leading a similar push to end protections for Yellowstone area bears. The two regions have the most bears in the US outside Alaska, the only state that currently allows hunting.As officials seek to make the case that protections are no longer needed, Montana wildlife commissioners on Tuesday voted to sign onto a multistate plan to maintain more than 900 bears in the Yellowstone area. Wyoming already has signed onto the plan, which would allow limited hunting. Idaho officials are expected to consider it next month.Montana commissioners also gave preliminary approval to revisions to Glacier-area bear population targets that could allow hunting of grizzlies in northwestern portions of the state if federal protections end. The rule calls for maintaining a population of more than 800 bears.Details on any future hunting seasons would be established at a later date.Wildlife advocates have objected to the bid to lift protections, saying state officials in the northern Rockies are intent on driving down populations of grizzlies and another predator, gray wolves.But state officials, backed by livestock and hunting groups, say bear populations need to be more closely controlled. They cite increasing conflicts between bears and humans, including attacks on livestock and occasional maulings of peopleAs many as 50,000 grizzly bears once ranged the western half of the US. Most were killed by hunting, trapping and habitat loss following the arrival of European settlers in the late 1800s. Populations declined to fewer than 1,000 bears in the lower 48 states by the time they were given federal protections in 1975.The last grizzly hunts in the US outside Alaska were in the early 1990s, under an exemption to protections that allowed 14 bears to be killed each fall in Montana.When Yellowstone grizzlies briefly lost protections under Donald Trump’s administration, Wyoming and Idaho scheduled hunts for 22 bears in Wyoming and one in Idaho, with hunting permits offered by lottery. A federal judge stepped in at the last minute and restored protections, a decision later upheld by the ninth US circuit court of appeals.The US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended in March to keep threatened-species protections for grizzlies. The agency cited a lack of connections between the bears’ best areas of habitat and people killing them, among other reasons. TopicsMontanaWyomingAnimalsBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Governor Steve Bullock Warns: Democrats Face Trouble in Rural America

      by

      I take no joy in sounding the alarm, but I do so as a proud Democrat who has won three statewide races in a rural, red state — the Democrats are in trouble in rural America, and their struggles there could doom the party in 2022.The warning signs were already there in 2020 when Democrats fell short in congressional and state races despite electing Joe Biden president. I know because I was on the ballot for U.S. Senate and lost. In the last decade and a half, we’ve seen Senate seats flip red in Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and more. Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats around the country since 2008. And in this year’s governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, we saw the Democratic vote in rural areas plummet, costing the party one seat and nearly losing us the other. It was even worse for Democrats down ballot, as Democrats lost state legislative, county, and municipal seats.The core problem is a familiar one — Democrats are out of touch with the needs of the ordinary voter. In 2021, voters watched Congress debate for months the cost of an infrastructure bill while holding a social spending bill hostage. Both measures contain policies that address the challenges Americans across the country face. Yet, to anyone outside the Beltway, the infighting and procedural brinkmanship hasn’t done a lick to meet their needs at a moment of health challenges, inflation and economic struggles. You had Democrats fighting Democrats, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and desperately needed progress was delayed. It’s no wonder rural voters think Democrats are not focused on helping them.I was re-elected as Montana’s governor in 2016 at the same time Donald Trump took our state by more than 20 points. It’s never easy for Democrats to get elected in Montana, because Democrats here are running against not only the opponent on the ballot, but also against conservative media’s (and at times our own) typecast of the national Democratic brand: coastal, overly educated, elitist, judgmental, socialist — a bundle of identity groups and interests lacking any shared principles. The problem isn’t the candidates we nominate. It’s the perception of the party we belong to.To overcome these obstacles, Democrats need to show up, listen, and respect voters in rural America by finding common ground instead of talking down to them. Eliminating student loans isn’t a top-of-mind matter for the two-thirds of Americans lacking a college degree. Being told that climate change is the most critical issue our nation faces rings hollow if you’re struggling to make it to the end of the month. And the most insulting thing is being told what your self-interest should be.Get out of the cities and you will learn we have a libertarian streak, with a healthy distrust of government. We listen when folks talk about opportunity and fairness, not entitlements. We expect government to play a role in our having a fair shot at a better life, not solve all our problems.We need to frame our policies, not in terms of grand ideological narratives, but around the material concerns of voters. Despite our differences and no matter where we live, we generally all want the same things: a decent job, a safe place to call home, good schools, clean air and water, and the promise of a better life for our kids and grandkids.For me, that meant talking about Obamacare not as an entitlement, but as a way to save rural hospitals and keep local communities and small businesses afloat. It meant talking about expanding apprenticeships, not just lowering the costs of college. It meant framing public lands as a great equalizer and as a driver for small business. It meant talking about universal pre-K not as an abstract policy goal, but being essential for our children and for keeping parents in the work force. It meant talking about climate change not just as a crisis, but as an opportunity to create good jobs, preserve our outdoor heritage, and as a promise not to leave communities behind.These lessons apply broadly, not just to swing states. We need to do the hard work of convincing voters that we are fighting for every American, regardless of party or where they live, or it’ll only get worse for us in the 2022 midterms and beyond.It’s in the void of inaction and failure to solve problems real people face that racially tinged cultural fights, like we saw in Virginia, take hold. My children are in high school and have never heard of critical race theory — nor have their teachers. What voters want to know is that Democrats will fight for racial justice and to improve the lives of rural Americans, no matter the color of their skin. After all, that’s what we’ve always done.In the parts of America that are completely rural, there are nine infants and toddlers for every daycare slot, one in eight lack health insurance and one in four pays over half their income in rent. High-speed internet has eluded many parts of our country. Voters in my state may have grown cynical about the legislative process, infighting and eye-popping price tags in Washington, but enacting the Build Back Better bill, along with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, gives Democrats something to run on: proof that we have voters’ backs, including those who live in rural America.It’s time for Democrats to get uncomfortable and go beyond friendly urban and suburban settings to hear directly from folks in small towns who are trying to run a business, pay the bills, and maintain access to health care. They have stories to tell and ideas to share, and we should listen. When then-candidate Barack Obama spent the Fourth of July 2008 in Butte, Mont., he didn’t go there because Butte was suddenly key to winning in November, but showing up there sent a loud and clear message to places like Butte all across our country that he gives a damn about us.Butte and Scranton may be a long way away geographically, but they’re not that far apart in terms of working-class roots, values and attitudes. President Biden can help rural Americans know and believe Democrats are tackling the challenges they face. Democrats need to get off the polling and consultant calls, get into the community and engage voters directly: Do you have a decent job that covers the bills and leaves a little left over? Can you afford your home and pay for health care? Do you feel safe? Do you believe we are doing right for your kids, educationally, environmentally and economically? Do you see a path forward toward a better life for you and your family?Fighting for every American means that, whether you live in Manhattan, N.Y. or Manhattan, Mont., you have an opportunity to climb the economic ladder and a temporary safety net to catch you if you stumble. Too often the Democratic Party comes off as a buffet line of policies, each prepared for a different group of voters. If we talk about — and work to address — the issues that people discuss around their kitchen table or at the fence line, the issues that fill endless hours of cable television become a hell of a lot less relevant. Our kitchen tables might look and feel different, but we need to learn to talk in a way that makes sense around everyone’s table.Voters are facing real challenges — and so is our country. They need to know that Democrats are listening, working, and fighting for them. The voters deserve that level of respect and need to know we have their back.Steve Bullock is the co-chair of American Bridge 21st Century. He was governor of Montana from 2013 to 2021. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More