Connect with us

Montana

Election reform group says they cleared signature threshold

Published

on

Election reform group says they cleared signature threshold


The group backing two major election reform initiatives cleared the signature-gathering threshold, organizers said Wednesday on the steps of the Montana Capitol. 

The group, Montanans for Election Reform, needed over 60,000 signatures from at least 40 legislative districts for each initiative and they reported having more than 200,000 between the two constitutional initiatives. 

County offices must approve the signatures before the initiatives are officially slated to appear on November’s ballot. 

“It’s a happy day for us and a happy day for Montana,” said Frank Garner, one of the group’s leaders and a former Republican state legislator from Kalispell.

Advertisement





Former Republican state Rep. Frank Garner speaks at a Montanans for Election Reform event celebrating the signature-gathering effort for ballot initiatives CI-126 and CI-127 at the Montana State Capitol on June 12.

Advertisement




Montanans for Election Reform said they bagged signatures from all 56 Montana counties and all 100 House legislative districts. The majority of the signatures came from Missoula County with roughly 57,000 signatures, followed by Yellowstone with roughly 47,000 and Gallatin with about 27,000. When groups gather signatures for these efforts, they often try to obtain more than the required amount because some will be thrown out.

People are also reading…

Advertisement

The first initiative, CI-126, would implement what are called open primaries and the second, C1-127 would require a candidate to receive over 50% of the vote to win.

The open primaries would place all qualified candidates on the same ballot regardless of party and the top four from each office would move onto the general election. CI-126 also stipulates that candidates do not have to list their political party affiliation on the ballot, but may if they choose to. Right now Montana has what is sometimes referred to as a “closed primary,” where voters have to choose which party’s primary to vote in — meaning they can not vote for a Democrat in one race and a Republican in another — when they go to the polls or cast a ballot by mail.



Open primaries backers net $1.1 million almost entirely from PAC and dark money group

If candidates split the votes in the general and no one person obtains an absolute majority, there are a few mechanisms that can be implemented to determine a final victor, and which mechanism Montana implements will be up to the state Legislature. Once the Legislature decides on a system if the initiatives are successful, the following elections will be decided under this new method as soon as 2025. 

Advertisement

If these initiatives are successful they would pertain to all of Montana’s major political offices (such as U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor and lieutenant governor, auditor, superintendent of public instruction and more) as well as the state Legislature. Notably, the Public Service Commission is not included.

Garner and other supporters of the two initiatives say these changes are needed to reduce the influence of “special interest groups,” reduce political polarization and their hope is that it will force lawmakers to work across the aisle more as opposed to appealing to the extreme end of their base. 

While the effort is being led by those of all political stripes, including multiple Republicans, the state GOP is vehemently opposed to the initiatives. The state party has glommed onto the option to leave one’s party affiliation off their name on the ballot.

A flier from the state party that was being handed out at a Granite County Republican Party event called the initiatives “destructive to our election process.”



Advertisement




Montanans for Election Reform

A Montanans for Election Reform event celebrating the signature gathering effort for ballot initiatives CI-126 and CI-127 at the Montana State Capitol on June 12.




“CI-126 / the ‘Top 4 vote-getter’ scheme requires no identified party affiliation for any candidate. It will result in less representation for conservatives, similar to the other states that have experimented with ranked choice voting,” the one-pager reads. “Make no mistake, the ‘Top 4’ scheme’s consequences will be devastating,” it continues. 

Advertisement

The flier finishes by disowning the Republicans supporting this effort, without explicitly naming Garner and other Republicans aligned with the group. 

Garner, for his part, bucked his own party Wednesday. 

“It has come to my attention that the people who currently benefit from this system apparently don’t want to see more competition and don’t want to see it changed … so that’s not a surprise to us,” Garner told reporters Wednesday, referencing the Republican party’s strong grip on most major offices across the state. 

In primary elections, turnout is notoriously low — roughly 40% of registered voters in Montana this year — and in Montana a lot of the races are decided in the primary because there are not many toss-up seats left in the state. In some sense, this trend means that a very small portion of the electorate is deciding on their next representative, something that the backers of the initiatives point to as a downside to the current system. 

Multiple people referenced the eastern congressional district Republican primary election in Montana, for example. The winner of that contest, state Auditor Troy Downing, won with 36% of the vote because the share of votes was split between a long ticket of candidates. 

Advertisement

Montanans for Election Reform is now gearing up for an education effort ahead of November’s election. 







Montana State News Bureau

Victoria Eavis is a reporter for the Montana State News Bureau. 

Advertisement



Source link

Montana

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

Published

on


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.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

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

Published

on

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:

Advertisement

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

on

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV





Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending