Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less