Campaign Trail News

Tomorrow is the day (Aug 2), when the assigned four members of the Apportionment and Redistricting Committee, representing the two party interests, will release their house of representatives maps. The maps are a response to the latest census data. The fifth member has been chosen by the state supreme court to be a neutral chairman, tasked with arbitrating the differences. Perhaps the formation of such a committee prevents gerrymandering of districts. Leaving redistricting solely to the legislature is akin to an NFL football game without a referee. The Montana constitution, maybe a document entering middle age, wisely understood the potential problem of political boundary cartography without a referee. We see that in Democratic New York and Maryland, Republican Texas and toss-up, North Carolina. There are guidelines that will challenge the chairman. For example, it is preferred that smaller cities like Whitefish, Havre and Livingston remain undivided. However there is also a potentially contradicting guideline that allows for the consideration of competitiveness in districts. I believe the idea behind this is to allow for not so straight boundary lines to be justified in creating a state landscape that yields legislative representation based on recent historic outcomes. Simply extrapolated, as might be the case in Montana, a 60% vote for Republicans in state wide elections should allow for 40 Democrats to be elected to the Montana legislature. A larger minority makes a difference in the composition of committees and the ability of factions (moderate Republicans and Democrats for example), to craft legislation.

The Montana Legislative web-site will lead you to the Redistricting and Apportionment Committee including upcoming meeting dates state wide and your opportunity either in person or on-line to provide comments on the maps. We are very fortunate for such a commission. Members of the 1972 constitution were wise in placing a firewall between the legislature and the lines to be drawn on a redistricting map.

1. More affordable housing: At some point the in-migration to the Flathead will level off. Some people may leave. There may be adequate supply of market based multi-family housing in the future. This is good but the market based product will be beyond the reach of a sector of our workers, many service related, many starting their careers in professions such ias education, childcare, law enforcement and other essential emergency services. I do support reforms that may hasten the reform of regulatory barriers; building accessory dwelling units, residential zoning that includes multi-family housing, flexibility on parking mandates, set backs, and height requirements. There are proven incentives that increase the inventory of deed-restricted, moderate prices rent that should be available. These include a state low income tax credit to compliment the federal low income tax credit, property tax abatements for rental units targeted for working residents earning below the average county income, availability of trust land where deed restricted homes may be situated, the use of instruments such as tax increment financing (TIF’s), within designated areas of municipalities and expanding loan programs through the Coal Trust.
2. Public Pre-K, child care assistance: In 2019 there was not consensus on the framework for a public pre-k program. This was the last chance (for the foreseeable future), for a Democrat administration and a Republican sponsor to make such a proposal. Such a program would use state funding based on ANB (annual number belonging), to build an opt-in program. We see good outcomes with pre-k and the most excellent child care. Child care access will require incentives on both ends; providers and consumers need tax credits and direct aide to start businesses and retain affordable care for the folks stressed to make ends meet.
3. Residential Property Taxes: We need expanded relief to residents who suffer under escalated and unaffordable property taxes. Taxable values of homes have increased. Fast growing counties and cities have expanded services to meet needs. Schools, counties and cities are capped. But taxable value increase (more development), or student growth allows taxing districts to grow beyond inflationary restrictions. I will consider the expansion of the elderly homeowners tax credit to include property owners and renters of all ages and expand the income eligibility. I will look at an adjustment of the residential tax rate. I will look at an increase of the property tax assistance program (PTAP), that uses in district funds to reduce eligible property tax burden (the elderly homeowner tax credit is state funded).
4. Improve our roads, more shared use paths for bikes and pedestrians: I’m committed to working with the city of Whitefish and MDT to prioritize needed projects in District 5 to improve flow and safety.
5. Retain Local Control: I support local authorities such as the city commissions of Whitefish and Bozeman, (The 2022 legislature stripped away such rights, I opposed), the right to implement inclusionary zoning, following a lengthy public process (time consuming and expensive!),and a vote of an elected city commission. This was an affordable housing strategy, in my opinion, stolen by the legislature in favor of special interests. Montana used to be bastion of local control, trusting our local elected school boards, health boards, and city commissions to make decisions in the interests of local constituencies. I support local control!
6. Mental health funding. School based programs need to be adequately funded. We need reforms to address deficiencies at Warm Springs. We need community based care and federal reforms for the flexibility of medicaid reimbursement for our facilities.

There are two competing checklists of gun laws, from the conservative and liberal perspectives and the two cannot co-exist, or can they?

Article 2, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution , Right to Bear Arms; “the right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of a concealed weapon”

At the federal level, 2008 Heller decision clarifies and enshrines the individual right to bear arms (not just associated with a militia), but is not absolute in doing so. For example , the right can be withheld from a felon and the mentally ill and the second amendment does not protect guns typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Likely, in the soon to be decision, NY State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. V Bluen, the supreme court will strike down NY’s very restriction concealed carry statutes (since 1913), which will amend the Heller decision’s references to restricting concealed weapons.

In my twenty four years on the Whitefish School Board, I participated in the designs of three schools. We are fortunate to have supportive voters and a growing tax base allowing us to construct safe, comfortable learning environments. I recall school safety as a key component of school design. I was likely obnoxiously persistent and as school shootings increased, so did my insistence on safe schools in respect to tight controls on entering our buildings. I also supported essential soft skills related to school safety. We developed a communications plan that asked all employees from the custodian and lunch room workers to teachers and counselors to communicate with students and pass on concerns to their supervisors. I recall my efforts to institute a modified block schedule within Whitefish High School to enhance instructional practices and allow for more collegial relationships among staff members and their students. I recall the first time we hired, in conjunction with the WFPD, and if I recall correctly and old DARE Grant, our first school resource officer. Our current chief, Bridger Kelch, was an early and highly effective school resource officer, earning the trust of our students and the ability to preempt potential dangerous situations.

We need and deserve safe schools and to reach that goal I’m convinced we need ideas from both checklists. The vast majority of gun owners are good citizens and their second amendment rights should not be altered. But at the same time an effective red flag law, where under a court order and strict procedures of due process, firearms can be removed from a person deemed harmful to himself or an institution such as a school. If an individual effected by a red flag law does not face a meaningful background check, he can easily repurchase a weapon. A hardened school with a district police force failed in Uvalde red state, Texas, and a red flag law available to intervene failed to be implemented in blue state New York, leading to a supermarket massacre.

Gun debates represent the most toxic of political discourse in the United States. As with abortion, and border policy, the American public is somewhere in the middle of extreme positions. Americans deserve statesmanship in reconciling difficult elements of public policy. Lacking this and enduring the lowest common denominator when it comes to such discourse, we can hope for divine intervention or the equivalent to set us on a path of correction.

Mark Sweeney was senator representing Anaconda, Phillipsburg and Deerlodge. He passed away unexpectedly in the midst of a primary race for the new eastern congressional district. In one of my last conversations with Mark at a recent Local Government Interim Committee meeting, we discussed the invasion of Ukraine by President Putin. The conversation lead to mutual concern and admonition of the sitting congressman, Matt Rosendale. There’s a place for avoiding overseas conflicts as we’ve learned from failed and expensive forays into no-win situations. Senator Mansfield warned President Johnson of the consequences of involvement in Vietnam and Secretary of State Powell memorably coined the phrase “You break it, you own it” despite his faulty intelligence regarding Sadam Husein’s chemical weapons. Rosendale’s isolationist stance is worrying. As a sovereign nation, Ukraine looked west to the European Union as the country aspired to be transparent in trade and be a western liberal democracy. This was a threat to the Putin’s hegemonic rule of order in eastern and central Europe. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a mistake, according to the Russian president.

I perceived Sweeney as an old style Montana citizen politician. As Democrats fall off the political map in rural and suburban Montana, Sweeney offered a template of sorts, a roadmap perhaps, for rural Democrats. Words and rhetoric matter. Issues such as second amendment rights, support and funding of law enforcement, public land access, support of agriculture, and strong public schools are issues important to many voters. Many Democrat leaning voters cross over in the primaries to have a proportional say in their political future. With Democrats difficult to elect, the nuances or often substantial differences among Republican candidates, are cause for independents and Democrats participation. Sweeney would have likely won the primary (he still could as his name remains on the ballot). He would have likely been part of a three way race that includes Independent Gary Buchanan, a respected Billings business man and former member of Republican and Democrat state administrations. Mark would have loved the race. What would the impact of an independent have been on a race that included Mark Sweeney? We can now only conjecture.

The US Senate unanimously (by voice vote), approved the appointment of Bridget Brink as ambassador to Ukraine. I watched a You Tube video of Brink in her former job as the Ambassador of Slovakia participating in the dedication of a nature trail and historic home of two young survivors of the Nazi’s rule of the area. She’s a most impressive person, skilled speaker, advanced degree from the London School of Economics, fluent in about five languages and wife and mother. President Trump had appointed her to her last post and he made a wise decision in doing so. Hurray for something, in that we find a bit of common ground between Presidents Biden and Trump. We need unity and lots of it to get through the most challenging of times. We may be heading into stagflation where there is inflation and a shrinking of the economy. Covid is not so coy in reminding us to dig up our our masks. Violent crime seems to be on the increase with Buffalo shooting a reminder of the potential evil that lurks.

So there is needed relief of weaponized issues in seeing Ambassador Brink gaining nomination in such a seamless fashion. There were naive isolationists during the turbulent and troubled years before World War 2. So too, are there isolationists here and now including our Congressional Representative Rosendale, the eastern Montana Candidate for Congress. Regular order, the term coined by John McCaine, must be maintained in Europe. As Ukraine looks west towards the EU and a liberal democracy, this regular order must be maintained for the future of the civilized world. This is a battle against a despot with significant skills and ambitions. Good and Evil.

We have an ambassador in Kiev and a Ukrainian nation with will and resolve. May we focus on what really matters.

I finished this 563 page and to my surprise felt optimistic. Like, what is there to be optimistic about? This slightly futuristic, a little sci-fi, looks at global warming and the policies and impacts on people and geography in a year not too far from now. The Ministry of the Future is an agency tasked with establishing scientific and economic policies address warming. It is run by a smart civil servant from Ireland and tracks her travails through attempts to bargain with national banks to navigating through safe houses to prevent potential threats on her life. The book is a celebration of earth as the last best place for human life, animal life and our amazing tapestry natural wonders.

There is enough real science and economics (a global carbon coin), to lay a roadmap for lowering temperatures. Along the way you will visit refugee camps (a solution is presented to people without nationhood ), eco-terrorism (an unfortunate method to knock off the evil unrepentant fossil industrialists), large scale water pumping projects in Antartica to name just a few. This is a dense read with details that are so well researched. This seems to be a super realistic novel and since the book ends on a positive note, and since the times, they have been not easy, I took it to heart that we may come out of this.

The book cover (2020 publishing date), proclaims, One of Barack Obama’s favorite books of the year”. That might be good enough for you to give this book a read.

I have never made abortion rights a piece of my campaigns. Previous to the Supreme Court leak, it seemed stare decisis held the status in check from the federal perspective. There was a time not that long ago when abortion was not a political issue. A Republican Supreme Court on a vote of 7-2 voted to enshrine legalization of abortion in Roe/Wade. Life and Choice were not tenants of the party platforms. I think we were better off when the topic was left to one’s religious and ethical compass. Here in Montana we look to the Armstrong case from 1999 for guidance on near term decisions the court might make on abortion restrictions. The states relatively modern 1972 constitution places significant importance on the concept of privacy suggesting the limited role of government in the making of such personal decisions. Compelling interest of the state from the Armstrong case was aligned with the viability language within Roe. As medical advances shift the date of viability so to might compelling interest shift in the state’s (the fetus), interests. Likely, a significant deviation from that decision will require either a change in the court that might look more like the federal court or a state constitutional amendment which outlaws the practice. Popular opinion, even in an increasing red state like Montana, weighs on the side of choice. I think a fast tracked amendment through a super majority Republican legislature, directly for vote by the people, will face an uphill fight for passage. It is more likely, as the state supreme court elections become more politicized (just look at the James Brown mailer you likely received ), the court will shift to the right.

Will abortion rights become a political issue in the upcoming mid-term elections in Montana? Will Republicans seek moderation from their party by voting for the opposition. The leak by a court staffer opens a potential pandora’s box. I’m paying attention to opinions at the doors regarding abortion,

I’m in the process of updating a walk card, a piece of literature we hand to or leave at the doors of our constituents. Candidates take these very seriously, likely proportionally more than the potential voter, who may pass it of as nothing more than junk mail.

Regardless, here’s the potential text:

I’ve live in Whitefish since 1989 (we bought a house for $44,000, no kidding, this is not included!), Following 24 years on the Whitefish School Board (Luckily, Critical Race Theory was still a curriculum item at law schools, not included), I was elected to represent you in the Montana House of Representatives. I seek a fourth and final term (term limits at the state level are really misappropriated!), as term limits restrict my service to eight years in one chamber. (Im often asked if I can move to the Senate, not unless the house districts are paired differently to allow a Democrat the possibility of winning, stay tunes as redistricting is in the process). During the last session, I was vice chairman of my favorite assignment, the House Taxation Committee and I also served on the Local Government and Transportation Committees. Between the sessions (remember we are one of five holdout states that meet only every other year), I serve on the Local Government and Transportation (2 committees) Interim Committees and I was appointed a non voting member of the Upper Columbia Conservation (Uc3), Committee, which oversees invasive species in our lakes, streams and rivers.

My spouse Heather and I made the right choice in raising our three children and numerous pets on Dakota Ave, just two blocks from the lake and a bike ride away from our schools. I’ve been a small business owner since 1998. I will continue to put principals over politics, (I really try to do this in the age of toxic politics)!

Did you watch or listen to the Supreme Court hearings? For some members of the Judiciary Committee members such as Cruz, Hawley and Cotton, it was an opportunity to fund raise from the base for potential presidential bids. It was culture wars from the aforementioned, and the old white guy (like me) raging,( used to be sometimes reasonable and sometimes not,) Senator Graham. It was a love fest from Democrats…”we all love you in Vermont!”

Judge Jackson performed very well under extreme fire from the culture warriors who add to the base by blaming every social ill on the nominee. Way too soft on crime! Soft on child pornographers! Way soft on illegal drugs and by God, a trustee at the Georgetown Day School that has a CRT curriculum! The judge says, “I’ve never used CRT in my role as a judge”.

Cruz the senator says, “It appears you can change your sex designation within an hour’s time” Cruz tries to be funny. Sometimes we see this on the floor of the MT House. Try to make light of a serious subject, There are a few nervous laughs. But the presenter thinks he’s hit a home run. Back to the comedy club in a strip mall in Amarillo, Texas….it’s not funny.! What can the nominee say about transgender athletes or accelerated sex assignments.

It surely would be better to extract the extraneous politics from the nomination process. Cut out the 10′ of “the world as i’d like to see it” according to the senators. Cut down the time for questioning. Cut down the time allocated for the run for greater office.

If a candidate is highly qualified and has been properly vetted, vote her in and get back to inflation, preventing a third world war and oh yes, climate change.

Yesterday an e-mail came my way with a link to a report by a Missoula TV outlet concerning the conservative platform. This platform is representative of a minority in the MT. House when you include about 20 moderate Republicans (Conservative Solutions Caucus and 42 Democrats (some more progressive others resulting in a friendly slit, unlike the Republican split).

To put into one sentence the conservatives propose to Freeze the budget, cut the income tax and expand tax credits for private schools and send some of the bed tax receipts to lower property taxes.

1. Freezing the budget will reduce services. Many state workers have contracts regardless of a freeze. In the personnel world of public school teachers, recalling my school board days, the contract cost the district about 2.2% annually in servicing steps and lanes, insurance and vacation and sick leaves. A budget freeze is a last and desperate act but shouldn’t be in the same discussion when a contradictory tax cut is proposed.
2. The income tax: There are problems with our income tax at the state level, most obvious is the low entry point into the highest bracket of 6.9%. When the state can afford to do so we should adjust the brackets to assist people who NEED such assistance. Minus a sales tax, the current maximum rate is pretty reasonable. A question to my conservative colleagues, “Will a reduction benefit Montana with increased good paying jobs?” Likely not. Another question, “Can we afford such a cut?” Probably not.
3. School Choice: It may surprise a reader to note than I’m not necessarily hostile to providing funding (tax credits), for high quality private schools or even home schooling. But lets be honest. Such an endeavor is an act of increasing school funding, not robbing public schools. Cutting the max level of 6.9% won’t get us closer to funding more students who attend private schools.
4. The bed tax: The bill being proposed by my colleague, Senator Regier is contemplating the return of a portion of the bed tax to those communities with such facilities. If the idea now is reducing property taxes, it won’t be much and won’t help cities and counties who struggle under a mil growth of one half of inflation. A state wide circuit breaker; substantial property tax relief, targeted to those who’s income has lagged behind appraisals is appropriate and expensive.
5. Emergency mandates. Some of Republican conservative leadership are hostile to Steve Bullock. In all honesty, I think it’s vice versa regarding Bullock’s feelings to some of the conservatives. Let’s pretend Covid goes away. Who needs a mask in Malta? I assume there will be a bill that strips away emergency powers for both a Democrat or Republican Governor, maybe a bill to strip away local control or the authority of our county health departments. The majority of the House do not buy this plan. I’m sure the solutions people were not invited and certainly we Democrats have no interest in such rubbish. Strong language, I know. I regret the thought that a Greg Gianforte administration might subscribe to the Kansas model of starving the government or the Kentucky model that actually resulted in a democrat governor.