Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Montana lawmakers reject bill to ease voting for Native Americans

Ceiling of the Montana Capitol

Lawmakers in Montana's Capitol reversed course Wednesday.

Feifei Cui-Paoluzzo/Getty Images

Montana lawmakers have shot down a bill that would have made it easier for Native Americans to vote.

The state House on Wednesday voted 51-48 to reject a bill that would have expanded voting access on Montana's seven Indian reservations. This is a sharp reversal from two days ago when legislators voted to advance the measure for final approval.

In the wake of the 2020 election, lawmakers in nearly every state are considering hundreds of election reform bills. Republicans are largely backing the more than 360 bills aimed at restricting voting access, while Democrats are pushing more than 840 expansive measures, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The Montana bill is among the few to earn a floor vote so far.


The House's rejection means that effort is likely dead, but some lawmakers are still hopeful the chamber could reconsider the measure, if not in this session then next year.

The bill would have required Montana's 56 counties to open at least one satellite or alternate election office on any reservations in their jurisdiction, beginning a month before an election. County officials and tribal leaders would have been given discretion to figure out the days and hours of operation.

Counties would have been instructed to accept tribal IDs, for voting or voter registration, even if they did not have an expiration date or physical address. Local officials would have also been encouraged to add ballot drop boxes.

While proponents of the bill saw it as a step in the right direction, some voting rights advocates said the measure didn't go far enough to bolster voting accessibility for Native Americans.

The legislation did go through revisions to make it more appealing to Republican lawmakers who were worried about the cost of the proposed changes. Before Wednesday's vote, there was narrow bipartisan approval of the bill, but ultimately five lawmakers — four Republicans and one Democrat — changed their mind and voted against the bill.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less