Montana

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Montana Republicans bar transgender lawmaker from the statehouse floor

      by

      Montana Republicans have barred the transgender lawmaker Zooey Zephyr from the statehouse floor for the rest of the session after she told colleagues they would have “blood on your hands” if they voted to ban gender-affirming medical care for trans children.Under the terms of the punishment, Zephyr will still be able to vote remotely. The Democratic representative had been forbidden from speaking for the past week over her comments, which Republicans said violated decorum.The decision to silence Zephyr had already drawn protests that brought the statehouse to a halt on Monday as demonstrators demanded Zephyr be allowed to speak.In a defiant speech on Wednesday before lawmakers voted, Zephyr said she was taking a stand for the LGBTQ+ community, her constituents in Missoula and “democracy itself”.She accused the Republican house speaker, Matt Regier, of taking away the voices of her 11,000 constituents and attempting to drive “a nail in the coffin of democracy” by silencing her.“If you use decorum to silence people who hold you accountable, then all you’re doing is using decorum as a tool of oppression,” she said.Zephyr’s punishment has ignited a firestorm of debate about governance and who has a voice in democracy in politically polarizing times, much like recent events in the Tennessee statehouse where two black lawmakers were expelled after participating in a post-school shooting gun control protest that interrupted proceedings.In Montana, Republicans said they would not let the Missoula lawmaker speak unless she apologized for her remarks last week on the proposed ban, which she refused to do. Conservative Republicans have repeatedly misgendered Zephyr since the remarks, deliberately using incorrect pronouns to describe her.Zephyr’s remarks, and the Republican response, set off a chain of events that culminated in a rally outside the capitol at noon Monday. Protesters later packed into the gallery at the statehouse and brought House proceedings to a halt while chanting “Let her speak.” The scene galvanized her supporters and and those saying her actions constitute an unacceptable attack on civil discourse. Police arrested seven people at the capitol.Tuesday’s floor session was cancelled without explanation, and Republican leaders closed the gallery to the public on Wednesday “to maintain decorum and ensure safety”, they said in a letter to Zephyr.The events have sent shockwaves through Missoula, a liberal college town where 80% of voters sent the first openly trans legislator in state history to the state capital.“When she first ran I thought, ‘they’re going to do something to limit her power’,” said Erin Flint, 28. But she didn’t expect Zephyr to be silenced completely.Montana has long leaned to the right, but with more of a libertarian bent than a zest for culture wars. That allowed Democrats to win the governorship regularly for decades, and occasionally to win control of one or more houses of the legislature.Andy Nelson grew up in a town of 750 people in eastern Montana, and only felt comfortable coming out as gay in his senior year of college at the University of Montana in Missoula, when he volunteered at the Center, a local LGBTQ+ community group where he is now executive director. He remembered long discussions wondering whether such a group was still necessary after gay marriage was legalized nationally in 2015. But that all changed in 2016, with the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.Trump handily won the state that year and in 2020. Republicans now hold both congressional seats and all statewide offices, although one of the state’s two US Senate seats is held by Democrat John Tester, a top GOP target in 2024. Last year, as Zephyr was elected in her Missoula district of about 11,000 residents, the GOP Republicans rode a surge in popular support to win a supermajority in both chambers of the legislature.Zeke Cork, 62, one of the Center’s board members, recalled the 1970s as a great time to be out in Missoula, though he said he had to follow certain rules to be safe. A railroad dispatcher, Cork has lived all over the US but returned to Montana in 2015. He felt safe enough to transition fully two years ago.Cork has been traveling to the state capitol in Helena to speak against the legislation affecting trans people since it was first introduced. After Zephyr was silenced, he joined dozens of others from Missoula at the capitol earlier this week.“We would much rather be living quiet lives, out of the spotlight, living under the radar, living our best lives,” Cork said. “I don’t want to be having this battle.”But, Cork added, the community has no choice. “She speaks for me and I sent her to that house,” said Cork, who lives in Zephyr’s district. “We’re fighting for democracy right now.” More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Let her speak!’: protests after Montana Republicans silence trans lawmaker

      by

      Montana protesters brought the state house to a halt on Monday after Republican legislative leaders prevented a transgender lawmaker from speaking for a third day over her remarks about banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth.The interruption is the latest development in a three-day fight over Montana state representative Zooey Zephyr’s remarks against lawmakers who support a ban on gender-affirming care. Zephyr, who is trans and a first-term Democrat, hasn’t been allowed to speak on the state house floor since Thursday because she told Republican colleagues last week they would have “blood on their hands” if they banned gender-affirming medical care.Police arrested half a dozen of Zephyr’s supporters. Protesters, some of whom were forcibly removed from the chambers, chanted “Let her speak!” from the gallery before they were escorted out.The Missoula Democrat was silenced and deliberately misgendered by some Republican lawmakers throughout last week. She was silenced for a second day on Friday as her Republican colleagues refused to let her speak on the chamber’s floor about a bill that would prevent minors from seeing pornography online.Republican leaders have insisted Zephyr won’t be allowed to speak until she apologizes. Matt Regier, the house speaker, and his Republican colleagues have indicated they have no plans to back down.“There are 10,000 Montanans whose voice will not be heard because their representative will not be allowed to speak, and that makes me really sad,” said Representative Connie Keogh, another Missoula Democrat, as proceedings opened on Monday afternoon.The standoff is the latest example of emergent discussions around civility, decorum and how to discuss political issues many perceive as life and death. Proponents of the ban on gender-affirming care see Zephyr’s remarks as unprecedented and personal in nature. She and her supporters say they accurately illustrate the stakes of the legislation under discussion, arguing that restricting gender-affirming care endangers trans youth, who many studies suggest suffer disproportionately from depression and suicidal tendency.Katy Spence, a constituent of Zephyr’s who drove to the Capitol from Missoula on Monday, said the standoff was about censoring ideas, not decorum.“She’s been silenced because she spoke the truth about what these anti-trans bills are doing in Montana – to trans youth especially,” she said of Zephyr.Zephyr’s supporters gathered outside the statehouse on Monday, waving pride flags and chanting “Let her speak!”. As proceedings began, they filled the statehouse gallery and supplemental Montana highway patrol officers stood by to monitor developments. Zephyr voted on various measures, but leadership pushed discussion of a bill she requested to speak on to the end of the agenda.Republicans denied Zephyr’s requests to speak on a proposal that would have restricted when children could change the names and pronouns they use in school and required their parents’ consent, prompting her supporters to interrupt proceedings for nearly half an hour. In the initial moments after proceedings were paused Monday afternoon, Zephyr defiantly hoisted a non-functioning microphone into the air.Zephyr’s supporters were escorted from the gallery above the state house floor, several by force. Leaders cut the sound on the video feed and Zephyr remained on the floor holding her microphone. Zephyr did not return after lawmakers reconvened and wrote on Twitter that she would be back after showing “support for those who were arrested defending democracy”.Zephyr told the Associated Press she was headed to the county jail with the half dozen protesters who were arrested.The display followed a promise Zephyr made earlier on Monday, when she told supporters on the statehouse steps that she planned to continue speaking forcefully against legislation that members of the trans community, including herself, consider matters of life and death.“I was sent here to speak on behalf of my constituents and to speak on behalf of my community. It’s the promise I made when I got elected and it’s a promise that I will continue to keep every single day,” Zephyr said before walking into the house chamber.She connected the trans community’s plight against gender-affirming care bans to the political fights animating other marginalized groups throughout the United States.“When those communities who see the repercussions of those bills have the audacity to stand up and say, ‘This legislation gets us killed,’ those in power aren’t content with just passing those hateful harmful bills,” she said. “What they are demanding is silence. We will not be complicit in our eradication.”Last year, Zephyr became the first openly trans woman elected to the Montana legislature – putting her among a record number of trans lawmakers who began serving across the US.The dispute started last Tuesday when the house was debating the Republican governor Greg Gianforte’s proposed amendments to a measure banning gender-affirming care for minors. Zephyr spoke up in reference to the body’s opening prayer.“I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands,” she said.Sue Vinton, the Republican house majority leader, called Zephyr’s comments inappropriate and disrespectful. That evening, a group of conservative lawmakers known as the Montana Freedom Caucus demanded Zephyr’s censure and deliberately referred to her using male pronouns in their letter and a tweet.The bill banning gender-affirming care for minors is awaiting Gianforte’s signature. He has indicated he will sign it. The bill calls for it to take effect on 1 October, but the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal have said they will challenge it in court. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Facing Tough Senate Race, Montana G.O.P. Looks to Change the Rules

      by

      An election bill moving through the Republican-led Legislature would rewrite the rules for a single race: the looming battle against Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat.HELENA, Mont. — Republicans typically cry foul when accused of rewriting election laws to benefit their candidates. But as the Montana Legislature debates a new voting bill, even some G.O.P. lawmakers concede that this one appears designed to help them win elections — more precisely, one very important election.The bill would rewrite the rules for the state’s next U.S. Senate race and only that race. The 2024 fight to oust Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat, is expected to be one of the tightest in the country.The legislation would shift the contest from a traditional election into a “top two” primary system, making it exceedingly difficult for third parties to reach a general election ballot. Some believe the system would keep the state’s vibrant Libertarian Party from siphoning votes from the Republican nominee.The 2024 fight to oust Jon Tester, a Democratic senator from Montana, is expected to be one of the tightest in the country.Sarah Silbiger/ReutersWhile supporters of the bill say it makes elections fairer, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Helena have claimed that the bill reeks of political interference. Some have chafed at the involvement of Washington operatives, especially allies of Senator Steve Daines. A Montana Republican and head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Mr. Daines is leading the party’s campaign to win control of the Senate in 2024.Brad Molnar, a Republican state senator who opposes the bill, criticized Washington meddling in Montana politics, saying that if national Republicans get involved, “we will lose.” He predicted that the bill would backfire on Republicans if angry Libertarians flock to Democrats. “They will be angry. Why wouldn’t they be? I’m not a libertarian, and I’m angry.”The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Greg Hertz, said he was trying to ensure that Montana’s senator would win with more than 50 percent of the vote and to also tamp down on parties’ interference with third-party candidates.Mr. Hertz said he had designed the bill to apply only to the upcoming Senate race because he saw it as a test run. He expected the Legislature to examine expanding the system to congressional, state legislative and other statewide races in the future.The system would mirror California’s primaries, where all the candidates from all the parties appear on the same ballot, and the top two vote-getters face off in the general election.The bill passed the Montana Senate last week by a narrow margin, with seven Republican senators voting against it. A House committee will hold a hearing on the bill on Friday.State Senator Greg Hertz, the bill’s sponsor, says he was trying to tamp down on parties’ interference with third-party candidates.Janie Osborne for The New York TimesMultiple former Republican officials are expected to testify against it. The Libertarian Party has also been organizing opposition to the bill. The state’s Republican governor has not weighed in.But the forces crafting the bill and pushing it through are powerful.Chuck Denowh, a lobbyist who worked for Mr. Daines’s 2020 campaign and has ties to the Montana Republican Party, has been working closely with Mr. Hertz. At one point he suggested critical changes that focused the bill on Mr. Tester’s race, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times.“We would like it to apply only to United States Senate races,” Mr. Denowh said in an email sent on March 26 to multiple lawmakers, including Mr. Hertz. “We’d like a sunset in 2025,” he added. It was not clear whom “we” was referring to, and Mr. Denowh declined to answer questions.Mr. Hertz quickly agreed with the changes and asked State Senator Steven J. Fitzpatrick, the House majority leader, who was copied on the email chain, to make the newly reworked proposal “a priority bill.”The sudden changes and swift reintroduction after an initial failure in committee caught Republican lawmakers by surprise.In a text message chain among eight Republican senators, Mr. Fitzpatrick answered lawmakers’ concerns by telling them the bill “came from Daines” and that it was the “brainchild of the Jason Thielman,” according to screenshots of the texts obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Thielman is a longtime Daines aide who is now the executive director of the N.R.S.C.“No wonder I don’t like it,” responded Senator Dan Salomon, a Republican state senator who voted against the bill.When asked about the text messages, Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he had never spoken directly with Mr. Daines about the bill, but that he believed the effort originated with national Republicans.Mr. Daines has not weighed in publicly. Rachel Dumke, a spokeswoman for Mr. Daines’s office, declined to comment.At least two Republican lawmakers in Montana said they had been pressured by Mr. Daines’s office to support the bill. And one Republican state senator received a text message from state Republican Party officials explicitly saying the bill was needed to defeat Mr. Tester. The lawmakers asked for anonymity to disclose private discussions.In an interview, Mr. Hertz said he had been working on election issues since last September, initially exploring adding a runoff election. But he acknowledged that his efforts seemed to gain national interest when he zeroed in on the Senate race.“Yeah, I heard from a lot of people in D.C. at that point in time,” Mr. Hertz said. He added that he hadn’t spoken with Mr. Daines personally but had spoken with Mr. Thielman repeatedly about the status of the bill.A spokesman for the N.R.S.C., Mike Berg, declined to comment on Mr. Thielman’s involvement.“The optics of the situation, I felt, were bad … I want to do it across the board,” said Jason Small, a Republican state senator who voted against the bill.Janie Osborne for The New York TimesMr. Hertz said that he thought the changes would help third parties. “This gives them an opportunity in the primary to win more votes. And if you have enough support, you will end up on the general ballot, and that will give you an opportunity to make your case to the voters of Montana.”A spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Gianforte declined to respond to questions, pointing to the governor’s brief statement at a news conference on Thursday.“A number of other states have tried things like this,” Mr. Gianforte said. “I think it’s kind of an interesting idea, but we won’t take a firm position until we actually see the final legislation.”Some Republican lawmakers who were supportive of the idea of a top-two election system balked when they saw that the proposal had been amended to apply only to the 2024 Senate election.“If we’re going to do a top-two primary, I’m all for it. I think it’s wonderful,” said Jason Small, a Republican state senator who voted against the bill. “The optics of the situation, I felt, were bad if we’re going to just single out one particular race and try it there. I want to do it across the board.”Some Republicans in the statehouse noted that the bill might not have much of an impact on the outcome. They cited a recent study by the election website FiveThirtyEight that found that Mr. Tester was likely to have prevailed in all of his elections even if the Libertarian candidate hadn’t run.The Tester campaign accused Montana Republicans of attempting a power grab.Republicans are “trying to change local election laws to look more like California’s in an attempt to gain political power for themselves,” said Shelbi Dantic, a spokeswoman for Mr. Tester’s re-election campaign.So far, no front-runner has emerged to challenge Mr. Tester in November. Republicans in Helena expect Representative Matt Rosendale, a conservative who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election, to explore a run. Tim Sheehy, a wealthy businessman and military veteran, is being recruited by some Republicans in Washington to run, as first reported by Axios, though he has not made any formal announcement.As news about the bill spread around the state, Republican lawmakers said they were receiving calls and texts from constituents claiming an unease with the bill. Senator Jeff Welborn, a Republican state senator, noted that the complaints weren’t coming from just Democrats.Mr. Welborn said that he had received multiple text messages, including one from a constituent who said the bill amounted to election interference. “This guy also has Republican candidate signs in his yard,” Mr. Welborn said. “He saw this as a really, really bad look on Montana as a state for trying this one on.”Former Republican leaders in the state have also been vocal in their opposition.“It’s a horrible commentary about how you value the votes of your fellow citizens,” said Marc Racicot, a former Republican governor and former chair of the R.N.C. “They didn’t sign up as guinea pigs.”Republicans in favor of the bill said that they believed it would cut down on the interference by major parties with third-party candidates. In the past, Democrats have attempted to promote Libertarian candidates to try and divert votes from Republicans, and Republicans have fought to get Green Party candidates on the ballot to try and draw support away from Democrats.“I think at least with the top-two primary you eliminate some of that nonsense,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said, adding, “It’s dirty politics at its worst.” More

    • 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