
Legislative session ends with varied success for local lawmakers
Jun. 8—Despite public fissures among the state GOP, multiple investigations into lawmakers' financial practices and a slew of bitter political debates, lawmakers from Northwest Montana are marking the 2025 Legislative session as a success.
"It was not easy. It was not fun, but that's how it was," said Sen. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka.
While he gave the 2025 session less favorable marks for "the process," Cuffe said he felt "the good probably outweighs the bad." Among the positives, he said, was lawmakers' productivity.
Legislators introduced a record number of bills, totaling 1,759 by the end of April. Excluding bills to confirm governor-appointed positions, lawmakers from Northwest Montana introduced 269 pieces of legislation during the 2025 session.
While all 12 of the bills that Cuffe introduced became law, other local lawmakers struggled to shepherd their proposals through the often-complicated maze of legislative hearings and floor votes.
Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, introduced 34 bills, three times more than his average counterpart. But most of the freshman lawmaker's ideas floundered early on in the legislative process. Only half of Schubert's bills passed their first committee hearing, and a mere four were signed into law, making Schubert's success rating less than 12%.
Reps. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell, Tracy Sharp, R-Polson, and Debo Powers, D-Whitefish, also had little to show for their efforts this session. All three ended the session with a 20% success rate. Powers and Sharp each introduced five bills and succeeded in passing one bill whereas Falk managed to pass two of his 10 introduced bills.
Other lawmakers that fell behind the curve included Sen. Mark Noland, R-Bigfork, with a success rate of 27%; Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, with a success rate of 29%; and Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, with a success rate of 33%.
By comparison, both Cuffe and Rep. Lyn Bennett, R-Columbia Falls, concluded the session with a 100% success rate. Bennett only introduced two bills, far fewer than any other local lawmaker.
Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, had an 86% success rate. Reps. Courtenay Sprunger, R-Kalispell, and Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, were also top-performers, with respective success rates of 80% and 71%.
Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, passed more legislation than any other area lawmaker. Of the 56 bills he introduced, 33 made it through the legislative process.
Other high-volume lawmakers included Mitchell with 19 bills passed; Sprunger with 12 bills passed; and Amy Regier with 10 bills passed.
NOT ALL bills are created equal. Powers, for example, concluded the session with a singular successful bill. But the measure, which expands state loan assistance eligibility for public school teachers, supported a high-profile campaign to enhance financial support for teachers.
Sprunger also contributed to the final suite of educational reform bills with the "Right Back Act," which reforms the state funding stream for public schools to reduce local levies and provide property tax relief.
And some legislation could still be weeded out during the upcoming "lawsuit season." Two bills introduced by Cuffe that reform voter registration laws are involved in litigation. Similar election reforms sponsored by Mitchell are also likely to face judicial challenges, as are a suite of bills introduced by Mitchell, Glimm and Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, that pull back protections for the LGBTQ+ community.
In total, about 12% of the bills introduced by local lawmakers proposed changes to the election process. Judicial reform and health services were also hot topics, but the most common theme, by far, was taxation. Nearly one in every five bills introduced by area lawmakers addressed taxes, mostly through relatively small changes to the tax rate for goods like ammunition.
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION is just one of lawmakers' many job duties, as Cuffe pointed out in his summation of the 2025 session.
"I have always felt that the more important work a person does is in killing bad bills," he said.
Cuffe pointed toward his voting record on judicial reform bills as an example. Several lawmakers proposed legislation making the state judicial system more partisan, but few of the reforms ended up passing both houses. For Cuffe, who said he believes courts should remain nonpartisan, the failure of that legislative effort was actually a success.
He also noted that, while he did not introduce legislation directly related to issues like timber and water quality, he served as the vice-chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
"I didn't carry legislation on those things, but I was very much in the middle of that," he said.
Ultimately, Cuffe, who has come up against term limits, said his eighth session was a good one to go out on. He said he will remain active in other political arenas, such as the International Joint Commission.
"For me, yes. I think it was a successful session," said Cuffe. "We did a great job. I did a great job."
Reporter Hailey Smalley may be reached at 758-4433 or hsmalley@dailyinterlake.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?


The Verge
32 minutes ago
- The Verge
YouTube has loosened its content moderation policies
YouTube has relaxed its moderation policies and is now instructing reviewers not to remove content that might violate its rules if they're in the 'public interest,' according to a report from The New York Times. The platform reportedly adjusted its policies internally in December, offering examples that included medical misinformation and hate speech. In training material viewed by the Times, YouTube says reviewers should now leave up videos in the public interest — which includes discussions of elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship — if no more than half of their content breaks its rules, up from one quarter. The platform said in the material that the move expands on a change made before the 2024 US election, which allows content from political candidates to stay up even if they violate its community guidelines. Additionally, the platform told moderators that they should remove content if 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk,' and take borderline videos to a manager instead of removing them, the Times reports. 'Recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell said in a statement to the Times. 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' YouTube didn't immediately respond to The Verge 's request for comment. YouTube tightened its policies against misinformation during Donald Trump's first term as US president and the covid pandemic, as it began removing videos containing false information about covid vaccines and US elections. The platform stepped back from removing election fraud lies in 2023, but this recent change goes a step further and reflects a broader trend of online platforms taking a more lax approach to moderation followingTrump's reelection. Earlier this year, Meta similarly changed its policies surrounding hate speech and ended third-party fact-checking in favor of X-style community notes. The changes follow years of attacks on tech companies from Trump, and Google in particular is in a vulnerable legal situation, facing two Department of Justice antitrust lawsuits that could see its Chrome browser and other services broken off. Trump has previously taken credit for Meta's moderation changes. As noted by the Times, YouTube showed reviewers real examples of how it has implemented the new policy. One video contained coverage of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s covid vaccine policy changes — under the title 'RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS' — and was allowed to violate policies surrounding medical misinformation because public interest 'outweighs the harm risk,' according to the Times. (The video has since been taken off the platform, but the Times says the reasoning behind this is 'unclear.') Another example was a 43-minute video about Trump's cabinet appointees that violated YouTube's harassment rules with a slur targeting a transgender person, but was left up because it had only a single violation, the Times reports. YouTube also reportedly told reviewers to leave up a video from South Korea that mentioned putting former president Yoon Suk Yeol in a guillotine, saying that the 'wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.'


Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Clearlake Hires Lederman from KKR as Head of Capital Markets
Clearlake Capital Group hired Josh Lederman from KKR & Co. for the newly created role of head of capital markets, according to a spokesperson for the firm. In his new role, Lederman will oversee debt origination, underwriting and distribution in what Clearlake sees as a first step in building a broader capital markets team, an effort that includes obtaining a broker-dealer license.