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

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less