Montana

ACLU plans to spend $1.3M in educate Montana voters about state Supreme Court candidates

Published

1 year ago

September 6, 2024

ACLU plans to spend .3M in educate Montana voters about state Supreme Court candidates

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union plans to spend $1.3 million on campaign advertising to educate Montana voters about where state Supreme Court candidates stand on abortion and other civil rights issues with a measure constitutionally protecting protect abortion access also on the ballot.

The expenditure comes after Republicans tried unsuccessfully in 2022 to unseat a justice by making an unprecedented partisan endorsement of her challenger. GOP lawmakers also argue that the Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench in blocking laws to restrict abortion access or make it more difficult to vote.

“With politicians passing increasingly extreme laws, including abortion restrictions and bans, voters have the opportunity to elect justices who will protect fundamental rights in the state from these attacks,” the national ACLU and the ACLU of Montana said in a statement Thursday.

State Supreme Court candidates cannot seek, accept or use partisan endorsements. The ACLU of Montana said it was not endorsing any candidates.

“From abortion to marriage equality and Indigenous voting rights, the people we entrust with seats on the Supreme Court of Montana will play a critical role in determining whether we keep the rights Montanans value or whether politicians will be allowed to take away our freedom,” Akilah Deernose, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

The ACLU wants to make sure voters know where Supreme Court candidates stand on those issues “so that they can cast an informed ballot this November,” Deernose said.

The $1.3 million is the most the ACLU has spent on a Montana election, spokesperson Andrew Everett said. The ACLU is also spending money on Supreme Court races in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio and North Carolina.

Money has increasingly poured into state Supreme Court races in recent years, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and sent the abortion issue back to states, said Mike Milov-Cordoba of the Brennan Center for Justice.

Voters generally don’t have “strong preconceptions” of candidates in Supreme Court races, so the ad buy is “potentially significant,” he said.

Total spending on two Montana Supreme Court races in 2022 was a record $4.6 million, including $500,000 by the state Republican Party, according to the Brennan Center.

Milov-Cordoba said he wouldn’t be surprised to see similar spending this year, “especially given the conservatives’ frustration with the Montana Supreme Court pushing back on unconstitutional laws.”

The ACLU ads and mailers note that chief justice candidate Jerry Lynch and associate justice candidate Katherine Bidegaray agree with the analysis in a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that found the state’s constitutional right to privacy protects the right to a pre-viability abortion from the provider of the patient’s choice.

Chief justice candidate Cory Swanson said it was not appropriate for him to comment on a case that may come before the court in the future, and associate justice candidate Dan Wilson did not respond to a survey sent out by the ACLU of Montana, the organization said.

A campaign committee, Montanans for Fair and Impartial Courts, has reported spending just over $425,000 for television ads endorsing Lynch, state campaign finance reports indicate.

What to know about the 2024 Election

Montana voters are being asked this fall whether the 1999 Supreme Court ruling should be enshrined in the constitution.

Historically, conservatives have accounted for a far greater share of spending in state Supreme Court races, Milov-Cordoba said. But since Roe v. Wade was overturned, groups on the left have nearly equaled that nationwide.

While abortion is a major issue driving the increased spending, state Supreme Courts are also being asked to rule in cases involving partisan gerrymandering, voting rights and climate change, he said.

“So who sits on those courts is a high-stakes matter,” he said.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

9 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

21 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link