Connect with us

Montana

These states are still sending out stimulus checks

Published

on

These states are still sending out stimulus checks


Stimulus checks were all the rage in 2020 as the pandemic destroyed millions of jobs and choked Americans’ ability to keep up with their household budgets. While most pandemic-era aid dried up years ago, some states are still dispatching stimulus-style payments. 

In most cases, the payments come in the form of a property or income tax rebate. Places like New Mexico and Montana have been able to issue these rebates because their state budgets experienced a surplus after taking in billions of dollars in pandemic relief from the federal government. Montana saw a $1.9 billion surplus for fiscal year 2022 while New Mexico’s surplus has reached $3.6 billion, the Associated Press reported.

Here are 5 states where residents may still get a stimulus check. 

Idaho

Idaho plans to send roughly 800,000 rebates totaling up to $500 million by the end of this year, according to an announcement made by state tax officials last October. The Special Session Rebate checks range from $300 for residents who file their state taxes individually to $600 for families that file jointly. Anyone who lived in the Gem State all year in 2020 and 2021 is eligible. 

Advertisement

Residents who haven’t received their check yet can track the payment at tax.idaho.gov/rebate.


Biden says “economy remains strong” after new consumer report shows slight inflation increase

03:05

Illinois

About six million residents were slated to receive income and property tax rebates, the state announced last year. Those payments began flowing last September, CBS Chicago reported. But it will likely take months for everyone to receive their checks, according to state tax officials.

Advertisement

The property tax rebate is $300 maximum. The income tax rebate is $50 for state residents who file as a single person, and up to $100 for couples who file jointly. Families with dependents can receive up to $300.

Massachusetts

Lawmakers in the Bay State said last year that roughly 3 million taxpayers would be issued about $2.9 billion in tax rebate dollars, CBS News Boston reported. The amount was roughly 13% of a resident’s 2021 state income.

Residents began seeing their “Chapter 62F” payments in October and most taxpayers have received the funds by now. Anyone who hasn’t gotten their payment has until September 15 to file their 2021 state taxes in order to qualify. 

Montana

Montana homeowners will get up to $1,350 in property tax rebate checks over the next two years, Gov. Greg Gianforte said last month. 

To qualify, a person must have lived in or owned a Montana residence for at least seven months last year and paid property taxes on that residence. Homeowners can begin applying for the rebates August 15 by visiting getmyrebate.mt.gov. Claims must be filed by October 1. 

Advertisement

New Mexico

About 26,000 low-income New Mexicans began receiving $500 or $1,000 “economic relief” payments last month, state officials said. The stimulus payments, all of which have been issued, were part of a $15 million effort to distribute state surplus funds, according to New Mexico’s Human Services Department. 

The Land of Enchantment also sent separate income tax rebates of $500 or $1,000 to almost 1 million residents who filed a tax return in 2021. Those checks went out at the end of June, State officials said. Any state resident who hasn’t filed a 2021 tax return has until May 31, 2024 to do so in order to receive the rebate check. 



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Montana lawmakers looking at possible future marijuana dispensary regulations

Published

on

Montana lawmakers looking at possible future marijuana dispensary regulations


HELENA — Since the launch of Montana’s adult-use recreational marijuana system in 2022, the state has put limits on who can enter the market. Now, state lawmakers are looking at possibly extending the limits, but in a much different form.

Earlier this month, the Montana Legislature’s Economic Affairs Interim Committee held a preliminary discussion on several marijuana-related bills that could be proposed for the 2025 session. One would freeze the number of marijuana dispensaries and other facilities for two years.

Since the start of legal sales, Montana has had a moratorium, allowing only providers who had been licensed in the state’s medical marijuana system to join the recreational market. It was initially set to expire June 30, 2023, but the Legislature voted last year to extend it two more years.

While the number of licensees was limited, those providers were allowed to open additional “licensed premises,” including dispensaries. The proposed legislation – still in a very early form and subject to change – would prevent any business from adding a new licensed premise between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2027.

Advertisement

“This time, we’re talking about a freeze on all cannabis-related business location licensing, so no new growers, no new kitchens, no new storage facilities, no new dispensaries – they’re the part the public are really going to notice,” said Pepper Petersen, president and CEO of the Montana Cannabis Guild.

The committee referred to the proposal as an extension of the moratorium, but marijuana industry representatives said it’s essentially an entirely new policy, because it would remove the requirement that licensees be former medical providers. That would allow licensees to sell or transfer their businesses to new owners who haven’t previously been in the system.

Petersen said people in the industry understand that many Montanans feel there are enough – or too many – dispensaries in the state. He believes local governments should be taking more active steps to limit the growth of dispensaries through zoning or other regulations.

“We’ve suggested to local governments for two years or more now that they put a number of restrictions on when, where and how dispensaries can open,” he said.

Local governments like Cascade County have looked at ways to regulate marijuana businesses. Next month, the city of Missoula is set to hold a public hearing on a proposal to pause issuing business licenses for new dispensaries.

Advertisement

“When Missoula, Montana, one of the most liberal cities in the state – one of the most marijuana-friendly cities in the country – has said we’ve got too many dispensaries, that reverberates through the state Legislature,” Petersen said.

During the committee meeting, lawmakers also talked about putting together a bill draft to clarify what authority local governments have to put regulations on marijuana businesses. In addition, they looked at a “cleanup” bill to make some technical changes to marijuana laws, as well as a proposed resolution to support the federal SAFER Banking Act, which would allow legal marijuana businesses to access banking services. The committee is set to take a closer look at all of the proposals, including potential amendments, at a meeting in August.





Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana judge deems defining sex in terms of only male or female unconstitutional – Washington Examiner

Published

on

Montana judge deems defining sex in terms of only male or female unconstitutional – Washington Examiner


A Montana judge deemed a law defining sex in terms of only male or female to be in violation of the state’s constitution since the legislation’s description did not clearly state its purpose. 

Members of the LGBT community filed a lawsuit against the bill, which was passed last year, claiming it denied legal protections to people who did not fit into either male or female. 

District Court Judge Shane Vannatta in Missoula struck down the bill — but not on the grounds that it ignored the protections of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Rather, she said it was unclear if the bill’s title was referring to “sex” as either sexual intercourse or gender. In addition, Vannatta stated that the bill’s title failed to indicate the words “female” and “male” in the bill’s body. 

“The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles,” Vannatta wrote.

Advertisement

Sen. Carl Glimm (R-MT) sponsored the legislation in response to a 2022 court ruling in which a state judge said transgender people could change the gender listed on their birth certificates.

The bill looked to “provide a common definition for the word sex when referring to a human,” the text reads. 

Sedan Southard, spokesman for Gov. Greg Gianforte (R-MT), told the Associated Press the governor stands by the law which legally defines what has always been the understanding of what a male and female are.

“Words matter. And this administration is committed to ensuring words have meaning, unlike this judge, who apparently needs a dictionary to discern the difference between a noun and a verb,” Southard said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is an important vindication of the safeguards that the Montana Constitution places on legislative enactments,” Alex Rate, the group’s legal director, told the outlet.



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Judge rules Montana law defining sex as only male or female is unconstitutional

Published

on

Judge rules Montana law defining sex as only male or female is unconstitutional


Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

A judge ruled that a Montana law which defined “sex” in state law, when referring to a person as only male or female, was unconstitutional, saying that the law’s description did not explicitly state its purpose.

Advertisement

District Court Judge Shane Vannatta struck down the 2023 law on Tuesday after a group of plaintiffs who identify as transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other identities sued, arguing the law denies legal recognition and protection to people who identify as gender-nonconforming, according to The Associated Press.

Vannatta did not address the claim of a lack of legal recognition and protection, but did say that the bill’s title did not adequately explain whether the word “sex” referred to gender or sexual intercourse and that it did not indicate the words “male” and “female” would be defined in the body of the bill.

“The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles,” Vannatta wrote.

BIDEN OFFICIALS PUSHED TO DROP AGE LIMIT ON TRANS SURGERIES FOR MINORS: REPORT

A judge ruled that a Montana law that defined “sex” in state law, when referring to a person, as only male or female was unconstitutional. (AP)

Advertisement

Montana’s law, S.B. 458, is similar to ones passed in Kansas and Tennessee.

The bill sought to revise laws to “provide a common definition for the word sex when referring to a human,” the text reads.

It defines “male” as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.”

“Female” was defined in the bill as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.”

Transgender pride flag

Plaintiffs who identify as transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other identities sued, arguing the law denies legal recognition and protection to people who identify as gender-nonconforming. (ALLISON DINNER/AFP via Getty Images)

The law was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Carl Glimm, who said the legislation was needed after a state judge ruled in 2022 that transgender people could change the gender markers on their birth certificates.

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is proud of the law he signed, which he said codified the long-recognized and commonsense definition of sex, the governor’s spokesman Sean Southard told The Associated Press.

“Words matter. And this administration is committed to ensuring words have meaning, unlike this judge, who apparently needs a dictionary to discern the difference between a noun and a verb,” Southard said.

Montana Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman Emilee Cantrell said her office would continue to defend the law “that reflects scientific reality.”

TRANSGENDER ATHLETE COMPLAINS ABOUT LACK OF SPORTSMANSHIP FROM FELLOW RUNNERS AFTER WINNING GIRLS STATE TITLE

Gianforte

Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is proud of the law he signed, a spokesman for his office said. (Garrett Turner/Office of the Governor)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana applauded the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is an important vindication of the safeguards that the Montana Constitution places on legislative enactments,” ACLU of Montana legal director Alex Rate said.

The bill was passed in 2023 during a legislative session when a ban on gender transition treatment for minors was also approved and when transgender Democrat state Rep. Zooey Zephyr was expelled from the House floor after a protest against Republican lawmakers who had silenced the Democrat.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending