Senate resumes ethics investigation into Sen. Ellsworth, former Senate president
The main stairway to the third floor of the Montana Capitol building is seen on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan)
Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, announced Thursday the Senate Ethics Committee will resume its investigation into ethical allegations against Sen. Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, former Senate president.
The Senate had earlier referred criminal and ethical allegations made by its Ethics Committee to the Department of Justice and temporarily paused its own internal probe.
The DOJ said Wednesday it had launched an investigation into criminal allegations.
However, the Attorney General said the department lacks the jurisdiction to investigate or enforce ethics complaints against a legislator, said Mandeville, chairperson of the Ethics Committee, citing a letter from the DOJ.
In his letter, Knudsen also said the Montana Constitution 'confers exclusive authority' on the legislature to enforce the code of ethics against legislators.
During announcements Thursday on the Senate floor of upcoming committee, Mandeville said the nonpartisan Legislative Services Division legal staff verified that the action he announced was proper.
'The suspension is over,' Mandeville said of the internal investigation. 'So the Senate Ethics Committee will now resume its work.'
Mandeville also said the DOJ's open investigation is the result of a separate referral to the agency, one from the Legislative Auditor.
The Legislative Auditor had found Ellsworth abused his power and wasted state resources when he signed a $170,000 state contract, since nulled, with a colleague as former senate president in December, before the 2025 session.
Ellsworth's lawyer has called on the Legislative Auditor to retract the findings.
Thursday, Ellsworth said Senate rules state the Ethics Committee's investigations must be related to actions 'during a legislative session,' and he argued the review would be improper.
'Obviously, this is political,' Ellsworth said.
After the meeting, Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, who made the earlier motion to refer both the criminal and ethical allegations outside the body, arguing Ellsworth would not receive due process within the Senate, said Thursday he supported the internal ethics investigation given the decision from the DOJ.
The Ethics Committee will meet 10:30 a.m. Monday, Feb. 24, and 8 a.m. Friday, Feb. 28, Mandeville said.
Mandeville said he anticipated the committee's work would take more than one week and less than one month.
The Montana Legislature should complete its work by the first week of May.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kathy Hochul's gutless silence on assisted suicide is a betrayal: Rep. Stefanik
Last month, Gov. Kathy Hochul attacked Republicans for their budget bill that aims to rein in wasteful and fraudulent federal spending. 'I believe that we should try to prevent our constituents from dying,' she declared. Now, just two weeks later, New Yorkers have proof that these words from Hochul's lips are a cruel lie. My heart shatters for our state: Hochul's gutless silence on the so-called assisted suicide bill passed by Albany's far-left Democrats isn't just cowardice; it's a betrayal of every New Yorker clinging to hope, a dagger in the backs of the vulnerable she swore to protect. In the last days of this year's legislative session, New York state Senate Democrats forced through a despicable measure, in a 35-27 vote, empowering doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to the terminally ill. This isn't 'dignity' or 'choice,' but a death sentence cloaked in deception, telling our elderly, our disabled and our sick that their lives aren't worth fighting for. The bill now sits on Hochul's desk, and where is she? Hiding. Silent. Dodging with a spineless 'she'll review the legislation' statement from her team. All while families of all political and spiritual backgrounds, all across New York, weep at the thought of our state allowing companies to profit off death. Hochul's hypocrisy knows no bounds. New York ranks dead last in access to palliative care, a compassionate lifeline that eases suffering and restores dignity for the terminally ill. Palliative care envelops patients in holistic support to manage pain and address emotional and spiritual needs, and it helps families navigate the unthinkable. It's doctors and nurses sitting bedside, listening to fears and crafting plans that honor life. It's the hand squeezed during a sleepless night, the reassurance that no one faces the end alone. Yet in Hochul's New York, only a fraction of those who need palliative services can access them — leaving the suffering to beg for comfort while leftist Democrats under her watch push a culture of death and despair. This failure compounds a broader crisis caused by Kathy Hochul's worthless leadership. One in five New Yorkers battles mental illness yearly, and hundreds of thousands go untreated. Those who live with disabilities are crushed by a cruel bureaucratic maze, worsened by Hochul's heartless overhaul of the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, which put the desires of politically connected contractors over the needs of suffering families and caregivers. Again and again, her policies destroy hope for those in need — and yet she stands mute and inept as her party peddles a bill that whispers 'Give up' to a depressed veteran, tells a grandmother with cancer 'You're a burden' and screams to a disabled New Yorker, 'Your life isn't worth saving.' It's anti-human, it's anti-American, and it's a betrayal of the values that bind us as New Yorkers. Hochul's silence here speaks volumes, and it isn't indecision but complicity, trading vulnerable lives for political points with her far-left Democrat base. New Yorkers are heartbroken and furious. Under Hochul's catastrophic reign, crime surges, costs crush families, corruption festers — and now the sanctity of life itself is under assault. People are fleeing to Florida and other states, driven out by the worst governor in America who fails them at every turn. Hochul has the power to veto this moral travesty. She could champion life by investing in palliative care that wraps the suffering in dignity and love. Instead, her silence screams surrender. I won't stay silent. My heart burns for the mother praying for one more day with her child, for the disabled New Yorker fighting for respect, for every soul this bill would discard. New York needs real leadership — robust palliative-care programs, accessible mental-health services and dignified support for the disabled — not a state-encouraged push toward the grave. In 2026, New Yorkers will reject this failed governor at the ballot box and restore principled leadership that cherishes every life. Kathy Hochul, the clock is ticking. Veto this bill or you'll be remembered as the governor who truly let hope die. New Yorkers are watching — and we won't forget. Republican Elise Stefanik represents New York's 21st District in Congress.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Disapproval of Democrats in Congress Ticks Upward—New Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Voters' disapproval of Democratic members in Congress has increased since February, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Newsweek reached out to the Senate and House Minority leaders, as well as the Democratic National Committee, via email on Wednesday for comment. Why It Matters Last November marked a pivotal election in the United States, with Donald Trump returning to the White House after winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College. The scale of the Republican Party's triumph in November—taking the White House, flipping the Senate, and maintaining control of the House—has sparked soul-searching within the Democratic Party over what went wrong and how to rebuild. The Democratic Party has struggled with unpopularity and internal dissatisfaction since the sweeping defeat, facing pronounced ideological and generational divides, compounded by widespread voter frustration with congressional leaders and the party's overall direction. Democratic leaders have come under criticism from within, some for pushing the party too far left, and others for appearing too conciliatory toward Trump, and a number who have felt disillusioned with its agenda have left the party entirely to either identify as independent or as a Republican. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (L) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (C) speak alongside other congressional Democrats outside the U.S. Capitol on April 1, 2025. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (L) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (C) speak alongside other congressional Democrats outside the U.S. Capitol on April 1, 2025. Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images What To Know A Quinnipiac University Poll of 1,265 registered voters nationwide, conducted between June 5 and June 9, found that disapproval of Democrats in Congress has increased since a February poll. Seventy percent of participants said they disapprove of how Democrats are handling their jobs in Congress, while 21 percent approve. Among Democrats, 53 percent disapprove, and 41 percent approve. Just 9 percent of Republicans approve of Democrats' performance, while 84 percent disapprove. A similar Quinnipiac University poll of 1,039 registered voters in February found that 68 percent of participants disapproved of congressional Democrats and 52 percent disapproved of congressional Republicans. The June poll found that 61 percent of participants disapproved of congressional Republicans' handling of their jobs, while 32 percent approved. Among Republicans, 79 percent approve, and 13 percent disapprove. In contrast, only 2 percent of Democrats said they approve of Republicans' handling of their jobs, with 97 percent disapproving. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. Other polls, like a May poll from the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago, found that most Democrats are not particularly optimistic about their own party. The poll, which surveyed 1,175 adults nationwide from May 1 to May 5, found only 35 percent of Democrats are optimistic about the party's future, while 36 percent are pessimistic. Twenty-nine percent said they are neither. The latest figures are worse for Democrats than in July 2024, when a poll found that 57 percent were optimistic about the party's future. Twenty-six percent were pessimistic, while 16 percent said they felt neither way. That earlier poll was conducted from July 25 to July 29 among 1,148 adults, just days after former President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race and endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris. In the early days of the Harris campaign, many Democrats felt hopeful about her chances of victory, as polls showed her more competitive against Trump than Biden, who had faced growing questions about his ability to lead the country for another four years. Polling showing disapproval with the Democrats comes after party divisions widened in the wake of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and several colleagues supporting a Trump-backed Republican spending bill, a move that triggered internal backlash and led to calls for new leadership and more aggressive opposition to Trump's policies. However, YouGov's congressional ballot tracker, which tests which party voters would choose in a congressional election, shows that the Democrats are more than 1.5 points ahead of the Republicans, with 43.9 percent to the GOP's 42.6 percent. What People Are Saying John Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy, told Newsweek: "The Democrats are not leading their activists but being led by their activists. And the American people don't like their activists because they are mostly crazy." Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, speculated as a potential presidential candidate for Democrats, said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in May: "Democrats do not have the best brand around here or in a lot of places. There's a lot of reasons for that. Some fair, and some not fair." Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, in a statement about her book: "Until January 20, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the President of the United States. At noon on that day, I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes. We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically." CNN pollster Harry Enten said in May: "These numbers should be a major wake-up call for Democrats. Democrats cannot count their chickens just yet, because those eggs have not cracked at this particular moment." What Happens Next Democrats are continuing to work out the direction of the party as they prepare for the 2026 midterms, when they aim to win back voters who shifted toward Trump last year.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'
