Montana constitutional experts say the state Supreme Court did the right thing by providing lawmakers a chance to override the governor's veto of a popular marijuana sales-tax bill.

Senate Bill 442 passed the Legislature with near unanimous support, but Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed it minutes after the Senate adjourned, leaving lawmakers no chance to override the veto.

After a series of court challenges, the state Supreme Court confirmed lawmakers should be able to take an override vote by mail. Critics called it "judicial overreach."

Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, executive director of Helena-based Upper 7 Law, said the court did what it was supposed to do, despite Gianforte's efforts to sidestep the override ballot.

"Only as a result of the court order did the state comply with its constitutional obligation to ensure that legislators, at the end of the day, have the say in what laws are passed," Sommers-Flanagan asserted.

The bill would have used marijuana sales-tax revenue for veterans programs, social services and county road maintenance. In his veto note, Gianforte called it a "slippery slope," which could set a precedent for spending state dollars on local infrastructure projects.

Sommers-Flanagan noted her law firm did not take a position on the measure but represented Wild Montana and the Montana Wildlife Federation, which supported the measure and the legal action to require the mail-in override ballot.

"It was wildly popular. That's just factual," Sommers-Flanagan emphasized. "The governor and Secretary of State failed to comply with their constitutional duties to ensure that lawmakers had the final say. And then, the court told them they had to allow that to happen. They did so, and the Legislature decided they didn't want to override the veto."

She called the attacks on the court for requiring the vote "disappointing," and an attempt to avoid talking about the content of the bill.

The measure had support from hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, veterans and county governments. But critics argued the formula for distributing road maintenance money was unfair.


get more stories like this via email

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently dismissed a case brought by Republican Arizona attorney general candidate Abraham Hamadeh, Republican Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby and an independent voter who wanted to decertify the results of the 2022 general election. Experts are now warning that with this year's highly contested presidential election, challenges to the results are likely to continue.

Harvard University government professor Steven Levitsky said the dysfunction in American democracy and erosion of civil discourse are cause for serious concern.

"There are a lot of sources of dysfunction in U.S. democracy," he said, "but I think the principle threat right now is that one of our two major parties has turned away from democratic rules of the game."

Levitsky said democracy can't survive if only one party is committed to abiding by democratic ideals. He added that all parties must accept the results of elections, reject the use of political violence and be willing to break from violent or anti-democratic groups.

Experts have said short-term solutions include more investments to safeguard election administration, but are also calling for more long-term fixes such as reforming the way business engages with U.S. politics.

Levitsky said the United States is what he called the most "counter-majoritarian democracy" in the world. He said it is the only established democracy where partisan minorities can thwart and sometimes even govern over majorities. He reminded people that despite former President Donald Trump losing the popular vote in 2016, he still became president, and the party that won fewer votes in the Senate gained control.

"That president and that Senate went on to appoint and confirm three Supreme Court justices which means that if we were like other established democracies, and the parties that one the most votes won the most power, we'd have a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court today," he said. "That is how out of whack our institutions are."

More than 80% of Americans feel elected officials are out of touch with their needs and wants, according to the Pew Research Center. Only 4% of Americans think the country's political system is working extremely or very well.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Members of the group Radical Elders are participating in a Chicago tech conference this weekend to explain the impact of technology on older Americans - including New Mexicans struggling to create a more just society.

Co-founder Alfredo Lopez said the group began in 2021, with many members coming out of the civil rights movements of the 1960s and '70s. He said elders have obvious issues around health care, but many also struggle with climate change and living in substandard housing on limited Social Security benefits. Others have difficulty with technology, and Lopez said he believes it's important those concerns are highlighted.

"And our role is to try to make sure that the Left in general incorporates a lot of these concerns in its work and its programs and its activism," he said.

At the Take Back Tech conference, Lopez said Radical Elders members will have a conversation with the audience about what could help aging Americans keep up with technology advancements.

Lopez, 75, said the work of Radical Elders is primarily online, because it can be difficult for members to travel and gather in distant places. He said he believes what sets them apart from similar groups is a commitment to include people from all walks of life - especially women and people of color.

"These are people out of sectors of movements with a vast amount of experience who are frequently excluded when you get to movements like the climate movement, the elder organizations," he said, "and who have a huge role to play because of their huge experience."

Lopez noted that medical care in America is very expensive as people age. However, he doesn't accept that nothing can be done about it - especially because the U.S. increased spending on nuclear weapons by 13% last year - and is now spending more than all other nuclear nations combined.

"You just spent $51 billion for nuclear weapons this year alone, and you can't give us free medical care," he said. "Are you kidding me? What the heck? I mean, it makes absolutely no sense."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

On the heels of its primary election, North Dakota has received a "fair" grade in an annual report examining voting laws for each state.

The Movement Advancement Project's analysis gives North Dakota high marks for policies such as voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals and having an adequate early voting period.

Not having paid time off for voting and not requiring a postelection audit are among factors weighing down the grade.

Brian Hinkle, senior voting policy researcher for the project, also noted North Dakota is part of the wave of conservative-led legislatures to ban private grants for election administration.

"While there are reasonable arguments that elections are a public function, and therefore should be funded by the government, the reality is that states and local election offices still have to rely on inconsistent and limited federal funding," Hinkle pointed out. "These funding gaps are likely to persist."

Hinkle echoed other experts who said misinformation about voter fraud has played a role in scaling back funding sources. He warned while local offices still carry out fair elections, aging voting equipment and other constraints take their toll, which creates ripple effects, such as longer wait times at polling sites and vulnerability in protecting against foreign interference.

Nationally, Hinkle noted the project's latest report showed since 2020, 18 states have taken steps to expand voting access, while nearly half of the states have enacted tighter restrictions.

"I think it's evident that the continued polarization of states and the divergence highlighted in this report has the potential to sow confusion among voters and lead to potential disenfranchisement," Hinkle emphasized. "Particularly for marginalized groups, who already face barriers to the ballot box."

The project cited a lack of voter protections for North Dakota's Native populations. The state's long-debated Voter ID law is often described as an obstacle for tribal areas during elections.

Meanwhile, with the 2024 presidential election coming up, Hinkle predicted state legislatures will be very active early next year in updating voting policies based on any fallout, as there was after the 2020 vote.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email