Montana

Why fight a 'clean and healthful' environment when it's good for all Montanans? • Daily Montanan

Published

1 year ago

January 17, 2025

Why fight a 'clean and healthful' environment when it's good for all Montanans? • Daily Montanan

Montanans are witnessing an inexplicably vicious attack on the ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that the plain language of the constitution guarantees “a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

What we haven’t heard is why a dirty and unhealthful environment is good for anybody — or the future of our state.

Truly, why would anyone think they or their kids or grandkids would be better off with a degraded and toxic environment? Yet, the court’s decision has sparked a misguided rebellion against the environmental laws that protect all Montanans — and an attack on the judiciary as if it’s some kind of enemy of the people.

But it seems pretty clear that enemies of the people don’t rule to protect the people. And ensuring that the laws passed by the Legislature comply with the Montana Constitution is the primary job of the Montana Supreme Court. It’s the foundational checks-and-balances upon which our system of government relies to ensure the executive and legislative branches stay within constitutional mandates to preserve the rights of the people.

Making war on the environment is a dead-end street — which we’re increasingly finding out as the tragedies driven by atmospheric pollution stack up along with the hundreds of billions of dollars to deal with the aftermath. So, where’s the wisdom in deciding to protect polluters at the cost to the rest of the populace?

How about this little truth: Pollution does not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, nor Independents, Libertarians, or any other organizational clusters regardless of what they call themselves. Nor does polluted air or water recognize any boundaries — we all need clean air and water, which is not only a shared resource, but a shared responsibility to provide those vital necessities to nourish, not poison, our people.

The fact is, we have many good environmental and conservation laws on the books that serve all our people well. There’s simply no good reason why one political party or another should be against those laws, none at all.

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the “environmental movement” was attaching itself at the hip with the Democratic Party. Yet, in Montana’s history, it has often been Democrat governors who have been responsible for some of the worst environmental decisions.

In the mid-1980s, Democrat Gov. Ted Schwinden cut the coal severance tax in half to supposedly make Montana competitive with Wyoming. He succeeded in losing hundreds of millions of dollars for the Coal Tax Trust Fund, but it didn’t save the coal industry because distance to market was the deciding factor.

Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer morphed into the “Coal Cowboy” within one year of taking office. His mission? Save the coal industry by peddling economically ridiculous proposals for coal-to-liquids when fracking was producing record amounts of cheap oil and gas.

Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock allowed radioactive waste from the Bakken fracking operations to be disposed of in Montana’s landfills — because it’s illegal to do so in North Dakota.

Of course Republicans have their own rogue’s list of bad decisions and policies — but there’s not room in one column to cover all those.

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why a clean environment should be partisan. The great attractions of Montana are our clean rivers, our blue skies, and an abundance of fish and wildlife that are the envy of the nation and world. The Constitution plainly states: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana” — and that’s a legacy worth upholding.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

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

Published

2 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

14 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