Montana groups are working to save a new Bureau of Land Management rule about oil and gas leasing on public lands.

They have hand-delivered a petition to members of Congress to block an effort to overturn the new regulation.

The BLM wants to ensure oil and gas companies, rather than taxpayers, cover the costs of cleaning up pollution from current or inactive oil and gas wells. The rules have not been updated in a century.

Jocelyn Leroux, deputy director of the group Montana Conservation Voters, took a delegation of advocates to Washington, D.C., with a petition for Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., and Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont, who oppose the new BLM rule.

"It was signed by nearly 500 Montanans that are telling them to drop their efforts to overturn this oil and gas rule," Leroux explained.

Sen. Daines has said the new rule would raise costs for doing business in the state, especially for small oil and gas producers.

Daines is attempting to overturn the BLM's oil and gas rule by using what's known as the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to vote directly on overturning an agency decision. The vote would most likely meet with a veto on President Joe Biden's desk if it passes. Leroux emphasized this type of political gamesmanship is not what Montanans want.

"There was a 60-day public comment period for this rule and 99% of comments were in support of the rule," Leroux pointed out. "Sen. Daines likes to say that he is supportive of public processes and wants to listen to his constituents but this just proves again that he's not actually doing that."

The new BLM oil and gas rule is scheduled to take effect June 22.

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