Montana
Senate leader says Montana judges are doing such a great job, they need more investigating • Daily Montanan
Being confused by government is an American birthright.
That’s where journalism comes in — to explain the process and the procedure.
But even I can’t tell you what, exactly, happened at a recent legislative audit committee meeting, and from the sounds of others on the committee, they may have been equally flummoxed by Montana Senate President Jason Ellsworth, a Republican from Hamilton.
Here’s my summary:
During a meeting last Wednesday, Ellsworth appreciated the legislative auditing staff’s work so much he couldn’t accept it.
Ellsworth thinks that the “vast, vast, vast majority” of judges in the state work hard and make great decisions.
He even believes that the majority of complaints filed against judges at the Judicial Standards Commission are frivolous.
But he just can’t accept that the commission can function on its own without the approval or oversight of the Legislature. And in an odd and contorted meeting last week, he got fellow Republicans to go along with not approving a Legislative Audit Committee report that, according to Ellsworth, did a 100% correct job in its totality of reviewing the Judicial Standards Commission. (The committee deadlocked 6-to-6, an unusual, but not unprecedented outcome.)
To attempt summarization here, which could give you the mistaken impression that I understood Ellsworth’s position completely, the legislative auditors had opened his eyes to the fact that the judiciary is a separate branch of government, not beholden to the expectations of any political party.
The audit process is laid out in state law, so Ellsworth and Republicans’ disapproval of the report is largely symbolic because the audit happened and was released regardless. The deadlocked vote was merely another display of petulance by Republicans who have registered their dissatisfaction of the judiciary in numerous ways throughout the past few years, including seizing emails of the judiciary and then not giving them back, despite orders to do so.
But, you know, in case anyone was wondering: The Republicans are mad at the judiciary.
Still.
During the meeting, Ellsworth didn’t gin up outrage so much as confusion, as he had repeatedly tried to explain his rationale, and attempted a parliamentary trick of using a substitute motion, which had members scurrying to find their rulebooks and one representative to ask for a parliamentarian like a burning man would request water.
“It’s established in our rules. We would need parliamentarian … it’s just an alternate motion. But per our rules, it’s a non-debatable motion,” Ellsworth said, trying to cut off any conversation.
Rep. Emma Kerr-Carpenter, D-Billings, asked for some clarification, which didn’t go well.
“I’m not asking for debate, just clarification from legal counsel, who is our de facto parliamentarian, about what this actually does,” she said.
“It’s a non-debatable motion. So the rules are the rules are the rules. I made it because I sat on rules committee,” Ellsworth said.
How ironic is it that Ellsworth, who has been a one-man vendetta against the judiciary because they are following the law, would chastise another member of the Legislature with the “rules are the rules” when that’s exactly what the audit report found the judges to be doing — following the rules?
He insults the people of the state who judiciously decided that they wanted their judges and courts to be beyond the reach of garden-variety politics.
Ellsworth seems to forget that for the first century of Montana politics, the judiciary was never far from the reach of rich corporations and the politicians who could manipulate the courts. He forgot that one of the copper kings, F. Augustus Heinze, was said to have more lawyers on staff than geologists. Or that citizens had to rise up in 1911 and 1913 to demand a ballot and initiative process to get around a court system that had been corrupted by the political system.
The audit that Republicans asked for showed that next to Wyoming and Tennessee, Montana has one of the highest rates of judicial discipline in the nation, certainly something that doesn’t fit very conveniently into a narrative that Montana’s judiciary has somehow gone rogue or is beyond the reach of discipline.
The auditors found that most of Montana’s practices mirror other states, and that if there is a flaw, it’s that more information isn’t released when the members of the JSC mete out some sort of corrective action.
Ellsworth wants to convince voters that the judiciary gets to police itself via the Judicial Standards Commission, but that, too, is nifty sound bite because citizens hold two seats on the five-person commission and a lawyer also sits on it, making the judges outnumbered.
Watching Ellsworth try to twist his mangled logic into some sort of coherence on Wednesday was poor political theater as even members of his own party asked repeatedly for him to explain the motion and his rationale. One member even joked that he wanted to vote “maybe,” because he was as apparently as confused as the rest of us.
What we’re seeing has two problematic outcomes, though.
First, these stunts discredit the work of judges and the judiciary. Constantly questioning the judiciary’s motives, especially when politicians know that some of the court’s work must be done privately and confidentially to protect those who are vulnerable or whose privacy is not a political football, has a corrosive effect. We have heard so often that we cannot trust judges or the courts that it becomes a sort of urban legend.
Second, we’re seeing in real time what happens when politicians don’t get the answers they want — it’s apparent they’ll keep wasting our time and money investigating something that’s simply not there.
But if you don’t believe my words, then at least listen to Ellsworth’s:
“We know vast majority of complaints are not legit. But there are legit complaints. I have met a constituent with a complaint on a judge. It’s very rare because I think judges do a great job in this state. I want to be able to tell them we’re taking it serious.”
Yes, judges are doing a great job in this state, Sen. Ellsworth.
But, can the same be said for the Legislature?
Montana
University of Montana president job draws high interest • Daily Montanan
The search for a new University of Montana president has drawn more than 60 applicants, according to a spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.
“We do not have an exact count at this time, as several applications are still being completed and additional submissions are expected,” said spokesperson and Deputy Commissioner Galen Hollenbaugh in an email earlier this week.
In January, then-UM-President Seth Bodnar announced his resignation to pursue other public service. Wednesday, the final day of filing, he announced he was running as an independent for the U.S. Senate to try to unseat Republican incumbent Steve Daines.
Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton Christian earlier said that with the advice of AGB Search, a firm that’s helped the Montana University System conduct other executive searches, he would undertake an expedited process to appoint a new president.
Christian has been providing brief updates on a website dedicated to the search. Last week, he said he and AGB Search are reviewing applications, and the pool of candidates was “strong and diverse.”
The commissioner also announced he was convening a small working group to assist in the search, members who “represent a variety of perspectives to assist in vetting and narrowing this field of exceptional candidates.”
In an email this week, Hollenbaugh identified the members of the working group who are assisting Christian with application review as:
- Community member and former Regent Joyce Dombrouski
- Faculty Senate Chairperson Valerie Moody
- Staff Senate President Dominic Beccari
- Administration Representative John DeBoer (Vice President of Academic Affairs)
- ASUM (Associated Students of the University of Montana) President Buddy Wilson
Hollenbaugh declined to comment on the way the rest of the process would unfold or the role the working group members would play.
Christian earlier said he anticipated an appointment within one to three months, or as soon as early this month.
Montana
Montana Supreme Court allows ballot measure on initiative process to move forward
HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a proposed ballot measure intended to simplify the process for introducing ballot measures in the future.
Justices ruled 5-2 that the measure, currently called Ballot Issue #8, did not violate state requirements that a single constitutional amendment can’t make multiple separate changes to the Montana Constitution.
“We’re very grateful to the Montana Supreme Court for agreeing with us that the attorney general’s finding of legal insufficiency for Ballot Issue #8 was incorrect,” said SK Rossi, a spokesperson for Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring the measure.
Montanans Decide argues the Montana Legislature has passed laws making it harder for the public to propose and pass ballot issues. The Montana Constitution already guarantees the people the right to pass laws and amendments through ballot measures, but Ballot Issue #8 would expand that to include a right to “impartial, predictable, transparent, and expeditious processes” for proposing those measures. It would seek to prevent “interference from the government or the use of government resources to support or oppose the ballot issue.”
Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office argued the measure “implicitly amended” multiple provisions in the state constitution, including by limiting the “power and authority of public officials to speak officially on ballot issues that affect those officials’ public duties” and by putting restrictions on judges and on the Legislature. Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring Ballot Issue #8, disagreed – and the majority of justices sided with them.
“Its provisions operate together to define and protect a single constitutional right—the people’s exercise of initiative and referendum,” wrote Justice Katherine Bidegaray in the majority opinion. “They are closely related components of one constitutional design.”
Bidegaray’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Jim Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Beth Baker and Ingrid Gustafson.
Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice Jim Rice each wrote dissenting opinions, saying they would have upheld Knudsen’s decision to disallow Ballot Issue #8. Rice said the language restricting government interference with a ballot issue was not closely related and should have been a separate vote. Swanson agreed with Rice and said the measure’s attempt to fix a timeline for legal cases surrounding ballot measures was also a separate substantial change.
In a statement, Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for Knudsen’s office, reacted to the decision.
“This decision only further muddies the courts’ jurisprudence on ballot issue questions,” he said. “This initiative would violate the separate vote requirement by amending multiple parts of the Montana Constitution, but the court contradicted its prior rulings. Attorney General Knudsen will continue to neutrally apply the separate vote requirement in his review of ballot initiatives.”
The court’s decision means that Knudsen’s office will now need to approve ballot language for Ballot Issue #8. Once that language is finalized, Montanans Decide could begin gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.
However, last year, sponsors of another initiative went to the Supreme Court to argue that the ballot statements Knudsen prepared were misleading. If Montanans Decide object to their ballot statements, that could further delay signature gathering while the case plays out in court.
“Regardless, we’re going to push as hard as we can to get those petitions into the hands of voters and let them sign and support if they so choose,” said Rossi.
Rossi said the legal battle this measure has gone through – and the possibility of more to come – shows why Ballot Issue #8 is needed.
“The state Legislature, and also statewide elected officials, have taken every opportunity to create burdens and hurdles and rigamarole for campaigns to get through in order to just get to the signature gathering phase, and then to get through the signature gathering phase onto the ballot, and then get through the election phase,” said Rossi. “The reason we filed this initiative is just to make sure that the process is simple, that the timeline is clear, and that Montanans can have their will heard when they want to propose and pass laws that they deem worthy.”
Montana
Christi Jacobsen enters race for Western House seat
HELENA, Mont. — Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen is running for Montana’s Western Congressional District seat, entering the race a day after U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke announced he would not seek reelection.
Jacobsen’s announcement sets up a new contest for the open seat after Zinke, a Republican, said he would seek reelection.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“As your Secretary of State, I’ve stood up to Washington overreach, defended election integrity, and delivered real results for Montanans. In 2020, voters gave me a mandate to clean up our elections, grow Montana business, and push back against radical liberal special interests. I delivered. Now it’s time to take that same results-driven, America First leadership to Congress.”
-
World7 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Florida4 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Maryland4 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling