Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Republicans close to ending same-day registration in Montana

Montana Capitol

Lawmakers in Montana's Capitol are expected to work out differences in their voter registration bills and send a final version to the governor.

Dennis Macdonald/Getty Images

Republican lawmakers need only clear a couple minor hurdles in their effort to eliminate same-day voter registration in Montana.

On Tuesday, the GOP-majority state Senate voted 32-18 along party lines to endorse a bill that would end voter registration at noon the day before Election Day. Their endorsement all but guarantees the legislation will soon reach Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte's desk.

Montana is currently one of 21 states, plus Washington, D.C., that allow voters to both register and cast a ballot on Election Day. Since Montana adopted the policy in 2006, thousands have taken advantage of this last-minute registration option. Same-day registration would be nationally mandated with enactment of HR 1, the comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform bill Democrats are pushing against solid Republican resistance in Congress.


Republicans in Helena who support the bill say Montanans already have plenty of time to register to vote before an election and the same-day policy places an undue burden on election administrators.

"Elections, you know, they don't just pop up out of the blue. They don't come along and surprise us. We know they're coming. The dates are there. We need to register ahead of time," said GOP state Sen. Mike Cuffe, who sponsored the bill.

But Democrats who oppose this effort called the legislation "voter suppression." They argue limiting registration opportunities will make it harder for people, particularly Native Americans and those with disabilities, to participate in elections.

Last month, the state House passed the bill along party lines. The state Senate will vote on the legislation one more time and then both chambers will need to concur on the amendments. Once it clears the Legislature, the measure will be sent to the governor for final approval.


Read More

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less