Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Boiling the judicial frog

Court gavel
Marilyn Nieves/Getty Images

Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.

Most of us have heard the story about boiling the frog. Drop a frog in boiling water, and he’ll jump right out. But drop the frog in cool water and then increase the temperature of the water slowly, and the frog won’t notice. Soon it will be cooked.

That’s exactly what is happening to state courts around the country. The Brennan Center for Justice comprehensively reports that as state courts have taken on greater importance over many polarizing issues — involving abortion, voting, gerrymandering, judicial selection and independence, judicial decision-making, judicial review, Medicaid coverage of women’s health, climate change, and limiting enforcement of court rulings — right-wing politicians and legislatures have redoubled their efforts to assert political power over state judicial branches and ensure judges will not be an obstacle to their partisan policy goals.


These attacks on state judicial branches have been incremental — a law here, a law there, chipping away at the third branch of government, with the ultimate goal of bringing judges and the courts under the control and heavy thumbs of the legislative and executive branches.

The political branches refuse to recognize that under our tripartite, constitutional system, judicial branches are co-equal and coordinate branches serving as checks and balances against the other two.

Montana, where I served on the Supreme Court, has not escaped these sorts of attacks. Indeed, starting with the 2021 supermajority Legislature, and continuing in the 2023 session, the political branches launched a veritable jihad against this state’s judicial branch and its judiciary. For the most part, these attacks have not succeeded. But the war goes on, nonetheless.

One of the latest attempts by the political branch camels to get their noses under the judicial tent involves the 2023 Legislature’s formation of a Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform. It is a quintessential example of the arrogance and hubris of the extremists in this Legislature to believe that they have either the duty or the power to oversee, much less reform, the operations or decisions of a coordinate, co-equal branch of state government.

Quite simply, the judicial branch does not work for the Legislature or the executive branch. Rather, the judicial branch serves as a co-equal constitutional check and balance on the two political branches. This most basic principle of constitutional law (not to mention, middle school Civics 101) is enshrined in Article III, Section 1 of Montana’s Constitution, which provides:

"Separation of powers. The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinct branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted." (Italics added)

The committee’s opening shot across the bow of the judicial branch was its letter demanding that the Montana Supreme Court answer a number of questions involving the court’ s procedures in calling in substitute judges in some cases, in retired justices filing an amicus curiae brief and in other matters. And this follows on the heels of the 2021 Legislature’s attempts to investigate the courts’ emails and its upending the 50-year-old system for appointing judges on merit, in favor of a partisan system under the control of the governor.

These are examples only. The point is that every attempt to “oversee and reform” turns up the temperature of the water in which the political branches have placed the judicial branch.

Unless the voters stop the political branches, the judicial branch will soon be boiled. It will be cooked!

Read More

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less