Two new laws look to protect motorists, pedestrians
Gov. Greg Gianforte signed two laws geared at making travel safer for both motorists and pedestrians at crossings earlier this month.
Senate Bill 471 seeks to make pedestrian crossings safer, while Senate Bill 428 makes it easier for counties to change speed limits. Senate Democrats brought both bills, which passed through the House and Senate by comfortable margins.
Sen. Dave Fern brought SB 471, which introduces a new offense into Montana code — endangerment of pedestrians to clarify who has right-of-way.
'I think it basically sets up some clearly defined rules for the pedestrian and for the driver,' Fern said during a Senate hearing for the bill. 'And it sets up, I think, pretty reasonable system of fines.'
The legislation added specific language for crosswalks with flashing lights, which the new law covers. If a pedestrian has already engaged the button to begin flashing the lights, a driver may not move through the intersection.
However, if the vehicle reaches a pedestrian crossing before the light is engaged, they are allowed to drive through the intersection.
The misdemeanor offense carries an initial fine between $25 and $100. Subsequent offenses carry higher penalties. If a person hits one of the beacons, or crosswalk devices, they are also now liable for the damage to them.
SB 428 gives county governments increased ability to control speed limits on roads, dropping the minimum speed they can set to 25 mph, down from the previous minimum of 35 mph. The law allows for greater control in areas classified as urban districts.
Sen. Willis Curdy, who brought the legislation, called it a safety issue. He also said some counties had been pressured into changing speed limits outside of what state law allowed them to do.
'Outside of the legislative session, a vast majority of complaints and questions my constituents have is that people are driving too fast and the county should lower the speed limits,' Curdy said during a Senate hearing for the bill. 'I sympathize 100%, but I remind them that state law does not permit the county to lower the speed limit under 35 mph. Senate Bill 428 will allow counties the opportunity to make that adjustment.'
Gov. Greg Gianforte has also signed a swath of other transportation bills, including SB 433 from Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton which changed right-of-way law in roundabouts. He also signed HB 764, a change in public transportation law that could expand municipal bus routes further.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats warn Cantor Fitzgerald about tariff-related trades; note firm's link to Lutnick
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have warned Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., financial services firm linked to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, that its tariff-related trades pose a potential conflict of interest. Wyden and Warren ask in their letter to Brandon Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, and Secretary Lutnick's son, for details on its work on tariff refund agreements and whether anyone at the firm has communicated with President Trump, Secretary Lutnick or other Trump administration officials. The Democrats are raising the alarm over financial products created by Cantor Fitzgerald that would allow clients to hedge against business risks posed by the uncertainty over whether the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs against major foreign trading partners. 'Specifically, Cantor has created a 'litigation finance' product that places the company in the position of betting that courts will strike down Trump's tariffs. Given that one of the purported architects of President Trump's tariff policy is Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, your father and former Chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, the firm's actions raise obvious conflict-of-interest and insider dealing concerns,' they wrote. The Democrats raised the issue after Wired reported last month that Cantor Fitzgerald's investment banking arm was exploring the creation of a financial product for clients to bet on the legal outcome of Trump's tariffs. If the courts declare Trump's tariffs, which the president says are authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), companies that paid tariffs would likely be entitled to large refunds from the U.S. government. Cantor has reportedly offered companies an opportunity to trade their legal claim to a future tariff refund in exchange for twenty to thirty percent of the duties the company paid, Wyden and Warren noted. If the courts strike down the tariffs, Wyden and Warren say, Cantor could reap a financial windfall. 'Cantor has reportedly already made a deal with at least one company for its refund rights, valued at approximately $10 million and 'anticipate[s] that number will balloon in the coming weeks.' A Cantor representative reportedly said the firm has, 'the capacity to trade up to several hundred million of these presently and can likely upsize that in the future to meet potential demand,'' they wrote. 'This financial product effectively represents a bet that President Trump's tariffs will ultimately be declared unlawful by the Supreme Court,' they argued. Wyden and Warren are asking Brandon Lutnick to describe the scope of this activity and any contact Cantor employees have had with the Trump administration. They want to know how many tariff refund agreements have been drafted and how many have been finalized and how many different counterparties are involved with these agreements. They want information on whether Cantor created the tariff refund agreements at the request of a specific client or whether it originated the idea. 'We are concerned about the negative impacts of these tariffs and seek additional information regarding efforts by Cantor to profit from them,' they wrote. A spokesperson for Cantor Fitzgerald did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
UPI
8 minutes ago
- UPI
Uruguay could become first in Latin America to pass euthanasia laws
If legislation is enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with a law that regulates euthanasia. Photo by Lolame/ Pixabay Aug. 14 (UPI) -- Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Parliament, has approved a bill on so-called "death with dignity" that would regulate euthanasia in cases of incurable illness and extreme suffering. The measure passed 64-29 and heads to the Senate. If enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with such legislation. The bill approved by the lower house states that euthanasia may be requested only by adults with full mental capacity who have been diagnosed with a terminal, incurable and irreversible illness that causes unbearable suffering and severely diminishes their quality of life. The measure does not allow assisted suicide. Requests must be made in writing and in person. A treating physician will evaluate the case within three days, followed by an independent second opinion within five days. If the two opinions differ, a medical board will decide within an additional five days. Additionally, the proposal would create an honorary commission to review cases, oversee compliance with the procedure and report to the Health Ministry and Parliament. Violations would be subject to penalties under the Penal Code. During debate in Congress, Health Committee chairman Luis Enrique Gallo said the bill "is about love, humanity and empathy" and about people "with very serious illnesses who are suffering," as well as a Uruguay that would be "once again a leader in rights" if the legislation advances. On the other side, "Never, never can an early death be a human solution," said Deputy Rodrigo Goñi, who called the measure a "disgraceful law." "What a paradox that in the year of the bicentennial, this Parliament is writing, I would say, the saddest page in its history," he added. Parliamentary debate in Uruguay has intensified since 2019, driven by the case of former sports official Fernando Sureda, who defended his right to die with dignity after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Polls conducted before the parliamentary debate showed strong public support for the measure. In 2020, 82% of respondents favored legalizing euthanasia, and in 2022 the polling firm Factum found 77% in support. In the Senate, the ruling Broad Front party holds a majority and is the main backer of the measure. Lawmakers are expected to pass it before the end of the year. In Latin America, the regulation of assisted dying remains largely uncharted territory, with progress driven mainly by court rulings rather than laws passed by legislatures. Colombia is the most prominent example. In 1997, the Constitutional Court decriminalized euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses, and in 2015 it established a mandatory medical protocol. In 2022, the right was expanded to include people with serious, incurable conditions that cause intense suffering. However, legislative regulation has lagged behind, and the debate over conscientious objection and effective access remains unresolved. In 2023, Ecuador legalized euthanasia after a landmark Constitutional Court ruling in favor of Paola Roldán, a patient with ALS. The country is still working on a regulatory framework to implement the decision. Elsewhere in the region, proposals are moving forward more cautiously or face strong political and religious opposition. Chile has been debating a bill on euthanasia and medically assisted dying since 2021. The measure was approved in the Chamber of Deputies, but has stalled in the Senate due to changes in government and pressure from conservative groups. In Argentina, parliamentary debate has seen several failed attempts, though public pressure is growing after high-profile cases that highlight the lack of options for terminally ill patients. Other countries, including Mexico, Peru and Costa Rica, have introduced bills or filed court petitions seeking to recognize the right to die with dignity, but without tangible results.
Time Magazine
8 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional map. Read More: 'Time to Stand Down': Newsom Gives Trump Deadline to Call Off Redistricting Plan In Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured representation. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution We used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price.
