logo
Montana legislature aims to resolve law enforcement dispute

Montana legislature aims to resolve law enforcement dispute

Yahoo20-03-2025

Nora Mabie and Kaiden Forman-WebsterMTFP + ICT
Lawmakers have proposed two bills this session that aim to resolve a long-standing law enforcement dispute between the state of Montana, Lake County and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
At the center of the conflict is Public Law 280, a federal law that shifts law enforcement jurisdiction on some Indian reservations from the federal government to certain states.
While Public Law 280 was mandatory for six states when it was enacted in 1953, in Montana individual counties or the entire state could choose to opt in. Unlike the original federal law, a Montana law required tribal consent.
In 1965, frustrated with what they said was insufficient federal policing and inadequate resources at the tribal level, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) consented to implementing Public Law 280 on the Flathead Reservation. Since then, local county law enforcement — rather than federal entities like the FBI and Bureau of Indian Affairs — has had jurisdiction over accusations of felony crimes committed by tribal members on the Flathead Reservation. And for the last 30 years, the CSKT have investigated claims of misdemeanors committed by tribal members, helping shoulder the jurisdictional burden.
The two bills proposed this session come from non-Native Lake County lawmakers. The proposals take different approaches to addressing the funding question, and one has garnered support from CSKT leadership as well as the lieutenant governor.
Lake County in northwest Montana overlaps with much of the Flathead Indian Reservation. In the 1960s Lake County officials supported Public Law 280, saying it would help combat crime on the reservation, but attitudes have shifted in the decades since.
Because the federal law is unfunded, Lake County officials have for years said it is burdensome to taxpayers. Where county leaders argue the state should reimburse Lake County for the law enforcement services it provides on the reservation, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte has maintained that funding Public Law 280 is the responsibility of individual counties, not the state.
The conflict has serious implications for Native and non-Native Lake County residents as it could change which law enforcement entity — state, tribal or federal — has jurisdiction over certain crimes committed on the reservation.
County officials have over the years turned to the courts and the Legislature to resolve the dispute — to no avail. They've also threatened to withdraw from the agreement altogether, which would kick jurisdictional responsibility to the state.
In 2021, the Legislature appropriated $1 to Lake County for exercising jurisdiction on the Flathead Reservation — an amount a Montana judge later called 'patently absurd.' And last legislative session, Gianforte vetoed a bill that would have sent $5 million in state money to the Montana Department of Justice to offset costs for Lake County over a two-year period. The bill also would've created a Public Law 280 task force, and it would have prevented Lake County from withdrawing from the Public Law 280 agreement in the future.
In his 2023 veto letter, Gianforte wrote that reimbursing Lake County would create 'a slippery slope at the end of which we can expect another request for funding in 2025 from Lake County — and any other counties experiencing financial pressures in enforcing state criminal jurisdiction within their boundaries.'
This session, two lawmakers have brought bills they say will remedy the conflict.
Rep. Tracy Sharp, a Republican from Polson, sponsored House Bill 366 that would provide $5 million to reimburse Lake County over the next two years. Unlike the bill Gianforte vetoed last session, Sharp's bill does not prohibit Lake County from eventually withdrawing from the agreement. Sharp's bill was heard early in February and as of March 17, it had not passed out of the House Judiciary Committee.
While Sharp called Public Law 280 'a model for law enforcement on the reservation' in a February House Judiciary Committee hearing, he added that 'Lake County and Lake County's taxpayers, tribal and non-tribal, simply cannot afford to bear the financial burden of Public Law 280 any longer.'
No one spoke in support of Sharp's bill. The bill's only opponent, Keaton Sunchild, Chippewa Cree, with Western Native Voice, offered what he called 'soft opposition,' saying the organization would like to see more consultation with the CSKT on the matter.
Several lawmakers on the committee noted the lack of testimony from state or tribal representatives, saying their perspectives would help inform their votes.
Sharp earlier this session proposed a bill to open parts of the Flathead Reservation to non-tribal landowners, which drew sharp criticism from the CSKT and ultimately failed.
In February, Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican from Polson, introduced his own Public Law 280 bill, which as of March 15 had made its way through the Senate and will be heard in the House.
In a February hearing before the Senate Finance and Claims Committee, Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras spoke in support of Senate Bill 393 — a notable departure from the governor's past opposition to Public Law 280 legislation.
'The governor supports a one-time only solution to help with the tribes and the state transition to a solution where both of them can contribute financially to the ongoing costs of enforcement,' she said.
When asked if Gianforte would sign Public Law 280 legislation this session, a spokesperson told Montana Free Press the governor 'will consider any bill that makes it to his desk.'
Lake County Commissioner William Barron and CSKT secretary Martin Charlo also supported Hertz's bill in testimony before the committee.
Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy, Chippewa Cree, and whose district overlaps with six counties and three reservations, criticized the bill on the Senate Floor, calling it unfair.
'What about the other 55 counties?' he asked. 'What about the other six tribes?'
SB 393 does not yet contain a fiscal note prepared by the governor's budget office that would estimate its price tag. But Hertz said the funding level will be determined by the House.
'[Between] $5-7 million is the range,' Hertz told MTFP. 'That's what the governor's office talked about.'
In their testimonies, both Sharp and Hertz alluded to the possibility of Lake County withdrawing from the Public Law 280 agreement. If the county were to withdraw, Hertz said the state would assume jurisdiction and could end up spending $100 million to build new facilities and establish new police forces.
Rep. Shelly Fyant, citizen of the CSKT, told MTFP she would not support Sharp's bill but will likely carry Hertz's bill on the House floor. Fyant said the tribe and Lake County have been collaborating on SB 393.
'This is the most I have seen them work together [the CSKT and the county] on this issue,' she said.
Even with this collaboration and Juras' support, however, Hertz said he thinks his bill has 'a 50-50' chance of crossing the finish line.
This story is co-published by Montana Free Press and ICT, a news partnership that covers the Montana American Indian Caucus during the state's 2025 legislative session

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's big bill also seeks to undo the big bills of Biden and Obama
Trump's big bill also seeks to undo the big bills of Biden and Obama

Hamilton Spectator

time34 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Trump's big bill also seeks to undo the big bills of Biden and Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chiseling away at President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act . Rolling back the green energy tax breaks from President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act . At its core, the Republican 'big, beautiful bill' is more than just an extension of tax breaks approved during President Donald Trump's first term at the White House. The package is an attempt by Republicans to undo, little by little, the signature domestic achievements of the past two Democratic presidents. 'We're going to do what we said we were going to do,' Speaker Mike Johnson said after House passage last month. While the aim of the sprawling 1,000-page plus bill is to preserve an estimated $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would otherwise expire at year's end if Congress fails to act — and add some new ones, including no taxes on tips — the spending cuts pointed at the Democratic-led programs are causing the most political turmoil. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that 10.9 million fewer people would have health insurance under the GOP bill, including 1.4 million immigrants in the U.S. without legal status who are in state-funded programs. At the same time, lawmakers are being hounded by businesses in states across the nation who rely on the green energy tax breaks for their projects. As the package moves from the House to the Senate, the simmering unrest over curbing the Obama and Biden policies shows just how politically difficult it can be to slash government programs once they become part of civic life. 'When he asked me, what do you think the prospects are for passage in the Senate? I said, good — if we don't cut Medicaid,' said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recounting his conversation last week with Trump. 'And he said, I'm 100% supportive of that.' Health care worries Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in 2010, or Biden's inflation act in 2022. Both were approved using the same budget reconciliation process now being employed by Republicans to steamroll Trump's bill past the opposition. Even still, sizable coalitions of GOP lawmakers are forming to protect aspects of both of those programs as they ripple into the lives of millions of Americans. Hawley, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and others are wary of changes to Medicaid and other provisions in the bill that would result in fewer people being able to access health care programs. At the same time, crossover groupings of House and Senate Republicans have launched an aggressive campaign to preserve, at least for some time, the green energy tax breaks that business interests in their states are relying on to develop solar, wind and other types of energy production. Murkowski said one area she's 'worried about' is the House bill's provision that any project not under construction within 60 days of the bill becoming law may no longer be eligible for those credits. 'These are some of the things we're working on,' she said. The concerns are running in sometimes opposite directions and complicating the work of GOP leaders who have almost no votes to spare in the House and Senate as they try to hoist the package over Democratic opposition and onto the president's desk by the Fourth of July. While some Republicans are working to preserve the programs from cuts, the budget hawks want steeper reductions to stem the nation's debt load. The CBO said the package would add $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. After a robust private meeting with Trump at the White House this week, Republican senators said they were working to keep the bill on track as they amend it for their own priorities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the president 'made the pitch and the argument for why we need to get the bill done.' The disconnect is reminiscent of Trump's first term, when Republicans promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, only to see their effort collapse in dramatic fashion when the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, voted thumbs down for the bill on the House floor. Battle over Medicaid In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, access to health care has grown substantially. Some 80 million people are now enrolled in Medicaid, and the Kaiser Family Foundation reports 41 states have opted to expand their coverage. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to all adults with incomes up to about $21,500 for an individual, or almost $29,000 for a two-person household. While Republicans no longer campaign on ending Obamacare , advocates warn that the changes proposed in the big bill will trim back at access to health care. The bill proposes new 80 hours of monthly work or community service requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients, age 18 to 64, with some exceptions. It also imposes twice-a-year eligibility verification checks and other changes. Republicans argue that they want to right-size Medicaid to root out waste, fraud and abuse and ensure it's there for those who need it most, often citing women and children. 'Medicaid was built to be a temporary safety net for people who genuinely need it — young, pregnant women, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly,' Johnson told The Associated Press. 'But when when they expanded under Obamacare, it not only thwarted the purpose of the program, it started draining resources.' Initially, the House bill proposed starting the work requirements in January 2029, as Trump's term in the White House would be coming to a close. But conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus negotiated for a quicker start date, in December 2026, to start the spending reductions sooner. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has said the changes are an Obamacare rollback by another name. 'It decimates our health care system, decimates our clean energy system,' Schumer of New York said in an interview with the AP. The green energy tax breaks involve not only those used by buyers of electric vehicles, like Elon Musk's Tesla line, but also the production and investment tax credits for developers of renewables and other energy sources. The House bill had initially proposed a phaseout of those credits over the next several years. But again the conservative Freedom Caucus engineered the faster wind-down — within 60 days of the bill's passage. 'Not a single Republican voted for the Green New Scam subsidies,' wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on social media. 'Not a single Republican should vote to keep them.' 'REPEAL THE GREEN NEW SCAM!' reposted Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, a Freedom Caucus leader. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Jim Beam column:New voting machines overdue
Jim Beam column:New voting machines overdue

American Press

time40 minutes ago

  • American Press

Jim Beam column:New voting machines overdue

Louisiana legislators have come up with a new system for buying new voting machines that some watchdogs are worried about.(Image courtesy of Louisiana has always had an election system that ranks among the most trustworthy in the country. However, the national conspiracy about the 2020 election being stolen from President Donald Trump resulted in the Legislature creating what is called 'an overly burdensome system for buying voting machines.' The Louisiana Illuminator in 2024 said the 2021 law created the Voting System Commission within the Louisiana Department of State. It is charged with analyzing any available voting systems and recommending a specific type to the secretary of state. Legislators also created a separate Voting System Proposal Evaluation Committee to independently review vendors that submitted bids before making a final recommendation. Joel Watson, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Nancy Landry, said the multiple layers of bureaucratic red tape would mean it would take five rather than three years to purchase new voting machines. And time is important because the Illuminator said the state's current machines are 35 years old and have become difficult and costly to repair. The Illuminator said an effort was made in 2024 to shorten the selection process but it failed 'under pressure from a small group of Donald Trump supporters who came to the state Capitol several times during the 2021 legislative session and bogged down committee hearings with far-fetched election conspiracy theories involving the 2020 presidential election…' Many of the baseless arguments were about Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine vendor that many Trump supporters falsely accused of rigging the election. Dominion in 2023 won a nearly $800 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which spread some of the conspiracy theories. Now another effort appears to be under way to purchase those machines. The Advocate reported Thursday that House Bill 577 by Rep. Daryl Deshotel, R-Marksville, which has passed both the House and Senate, authorizes the elections department to purchase a new voting system using a bidding process called 'invitation to negotiate.' An 'invitation to negotiate' (ITN) is a type of solicitation used in procurement, where the buyer invites potential suppliers to submit proposals and then negotiates with the most promising ones to achieve the best possible outcome. It's a competitive process where factors beyond price, like experience, project plans, and design features, can be considered. The newspaper said the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana says the new process could lead to less transparency. It is a substitute for the open bidding process, which has delayed purchase of new machines because of lawsuits filed by unsuccessful bidders. Watson said Gov. Jeff Landry hopes to have a new voting system finalized by the end of 2025 and begin a 'phased-in implementation' of the new system in 2026. Under the new system, the state invites vendors to submit competitive sealed responses as a starting point for negotiations. It is then empowered to select which vendors it wants to continue negotiations with. Louisiana currently uses voting machines from Dominion and it will be interesting to see whether Dominion is asked for a response. The state's current machines don't include a paper trail, making it impossible to double-check election results. Absentee and mail-in ballots are on paper and can be checked, but over 90% of Louisiana voters cast their ballots in person. Landry defends the new selection process, saying negotiation is a public bid process. 'It's just more flexible …. It allows you to exchange more information than (a request for proposals) does.' Melinda Deslatte, the research director for PAR, said, 'We just want to make sure that there will be something available for the public to see at the end of this process to understand why the secretary of state's office chose the vendor that it chose.' Deslatte added, 'We're not entirely certain yet if that information will be publicly available. But we're hopeful because the secretary of state's office has indicated that they expect this to be a transparent process.' The PAR concerns are legitimate because the Landry administration has been active in trying to close public records. Landry and other top officials in his administration most of the time also refuse to respond to news media questions. We hope things will be different and that this new voting machine purchasing process will be open widely to the general public. Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than six decades. Contact him at 337-515-8871 or Reply Forward Add reaction

As a generation of gay and lesbian people ages, memories of worse - and better
As a generation of gay and lesbian people ages, memories of worse - and better

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

As a generation of gay and lesbian people ages, memories of worse - and better

WASHINGTON (AP) — David Perry recalls being young and gay in 1980s Washington D.C. and having 'an absolute blast.' He was fresh out of college, raised in Richmond, Virginia, and had long viewed the nation's capital as 'the big city' where he could finally embrace his true self. He came out of the closet here, got a job at the National Endowment for the Arts where his boss was a gay Republican, and 'lost my virginity in D.C. on August 27, 1980,' he says, chuckling. The bars and clubs were packed with gay men and women — Republican and Democrat — and almost all of them deep in the closet. 'There were a lot of gay men in D.C., and they all seemed to work for the White House or members of Congress. It was kind of a joke. This was pre-Internet, pre-Facebook, pre-all of that. So people could be kind of on the down-low. You would run into congresspeople at the bar,' Perry says. 'The closet was pretty transparent. It's just that no one talked about it.' He also remembers a billboard near the Dupont Circle Metro station with a counter ticking off the total number of of AIDS deaths in the District of Columbia. 'I remember when the number was three,' says Perry, 63. Now Perry, a public relations professional in San Francisco, is part of a generation that can find itself overshadowed amidst the after-parties and DJ sets of World Pride, which wraps up this weekend with a two-day block party on Pennsylvania Avenue. Advocates warn of a quiet crisis among retirement-age LGBTQ+ people and a community at risk of becoming marginalized inside their own community. 'It's really easy for Pride to be about young people and parties,' says Sophie Fisher, LGBTQ program coordinator for Seabury Resources for Aging, a company that runs queer-friendly retirement homes and assisted-living facilities and which organized a pair of Silver Pride events last month for LGBTQ+ people over age 55. These were 'the first people through the wall' in the battle for gay rights and protections, Fisher says. Now, 'they kind of get swept under the rug.' Loneliness and isolation The challenges and obstacles for elderly LGBTQ+ people can be daunting. 'We're a society that really values youth as is. When you throw in LGBTQ on top of that, it's a double whammy,' says Christina Da Costa of the group SAGE — Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders. 'When you combine so many factors, you have a population that's a lot less likely to thrive than their younger brethren.' Older LGBTQ+ people are far more likely to have no contact with their family and less likely to have children to help care for them, Da Costa says. Gay men over 60 are the precise generation that saw their peer group decimated by AIDS. The result: chronic loneliness and isolation. 'As you age, it becomes difficult to find your peer group because you don't go out to bars anymore,' says Yvonne Smith, a 73-year-old D.C. resident who moved to Washington at age 14. 'There are people isolated and alone out there.' These seniors are also often poorer than their younger brethren. Many were kicked out of the house the moment they came out of the closet, and being openly queer or nonbinary could make you unemployable or vulnerable to firing deep into the 1990s. 'You didn't want to be coming out of a gay bar, see one of your co-workers or one of your students,' Smith says. 'People were afraid that if it was known you were gay, they would lose their security clearance or not be hired at all.' In April, founders cut the ribbon on Mary's House , a new 15-unit living facility for LGBTQ+ seniors in southeast Washington. These kind of inclusive senior-care centers are becoming an increasing priority for LGBTQ+ elders. Rayceen Pendarvis, a D.C. queer icon, performer and presenter, says older community members who enter retirement homes or assisted-living centers can face social isolation or hostility from judgmental residents. 'As we age, we lose our peers. We lose our loved ones and some of us no longer have the ability to maintain our homes,' says Pendarvis, who identifies as 'two-spirit' and eschews all pronouns. 'Sometimes they go in, and they go back into the closet. It's very painful for some.' A generation gap Perry and others see a clear divide between their generation and the younger LGBTQ+ crowd. Younger people, Perry says, drink and smoke a lot less and do much less bar-hopping in the dating-app age. Others can't help but gripe a bit about how these youngsters don't know how good they have it. 'They take all these protections for granted,' Smith says. The younger generation 'got comfortable,' Pendarvis says, and sometimes doesn't fully understand the multigenerational fight that came before. 'We had to fight to get the rights that we have today,' Pendarvis said. 'We fought for a place at the table. We CREATED the table!' Now that fight is on again as President Donald Trump's administration sets the community on edge with an open culture war targeting trans protections and drag shows, and enforcing a binary view of gender identity. The struggle against that campaign may be complicated by a quiet reality inside the LGBTQ+ community: These issues remain a topic of controversy among some LGBTQ+ seniors. Perry said he has observed that some older lesbians remain leery of trans women; likewise, he said, some older gay men are leery of the drag-queen phenomenon. 'There is a good deal of generational sensitivity that needs to be practiced by our older gay brethren,' he says. 'The gender fluidity that has come about in the last 15 years, I would be lying if I said I didn't have to adjust my understanding of it sometimes.' Despite the internal complexities, many are hoping to see a renewed sense of militancy and street politics in the younger LGBTQ+ generation. Sunday's rally and March for Freedom , starting at the Lincoln Memorial, is expected to be particularly defiant given the 2025 context. 'I think we're going to see a whole new era of activism,' Perry says. 'I think we will find our spine and our walking shoes – maybe orthopedic – and protest again. But I really hope that the younger generation helps us pick up this torch.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store