Senate swaps counsel for ethics investigation; Ethics Committee lays out rules
Senate President Matt Regier is changing lawyers after Senate Democrats objected to his pick as outside counsel to help in an ethics investigation into Hamilton Sen. Jason Ellsworth.
Earlier this week Regier announced he'd hired Matthew Monforton, a Bozeman-based lawyer, to work for himself and the GOP majority leadership and take on a 'prosecutorial' role in the ethics committee.
However, Senate Democrats expressed reservations about Monforton's role with the committee due to his contract naming Regier as the client, his history of partisanship, and recent social media posts disparaging Ellsworth.
Sen. Laura Smith, D-Helena, a former prosecutor, told the Senate Ethics Committee on Wednesday she was not comfortable working with Monforton, and wasn't sure they even needed outside counsel.
'Our citizens need to see an ethics process that's fair,' Smith said, saying any outside counsel should guide the committee by being 'unbiased, diligent and fair.'
Smith suggested they use in-house attorneys, or find someone mutually agreeable to all members of the committee.
On Thursday morning, Regier sent out an email to reporters indicating he is in the process of hiring a new attorney, Adam Duerk from Missoula, a highly qualified attorney 'without any of the political history' that Monforton had.
'Senator Ellsworth has his own outside legal counsel. I believe very strongly that it's important for the Senate to also have legal counsel in this matter,' Regier said in his email. 'There is no reason at this point for further objections or delays to the Senate Ethics Committee's important work. The people of Montana expect the Legislature to investigate and resolve allegations of impropriety in a timely manner, and it's time for the Ethics Committee to proceed accordingly.'
Reached by phone on Thursday morning, Duerk said he would not comment on a matter pending before the Senate.
Monforton, who attended the organizational meeting of the Ethics Committee Wednesday afternoon, told the Daily Montanan that based on what he heard, he believes 'Democrats are heavily invested in Ellsworth and don't want a prosecutor advocating for anything more than a slap on the wrist.'
At the start of the 69th Legislature, Senate Democrats, Ellsworth and eight other Republicans joined in a vote to change Senate rules related to committees, opposing Regier and GOP leadership.
A spokesperson for Senate Democrats said they are more optimistic about Duerk, appreciate the good-faith effort by Regier to address their concerns, and hope to meet with Duerk before fully endorsing his work with the Ethics Committee.
At its organizational meeting Wednesday, the Senate Ethics Committee discussed its rules and schedule for the investigation into Sen. Ellsworth.
The bipartisan Senate committee, comprising two Republicans and two Democrats, will hold hearings in February to determine whether actions Ellsworth took to enter a $170,100 no-bid contract with a business associate last year violated the state's code of ethics, or any legislative or state laws.
Members of the committee emphasized that their role is to be an independent fact-finding body, which will ultimately make a report and recommendation to the full Senate chamber to vote on 'whether good cause is shown to expel or punish' Ellsworth.
'We want to get to the facts of the case. We want to do it expeditiously,' Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, said. 'We don't want to drag this out forever.'
Under the rules adopted by the committee, Ellsworth will have four days after an initial meeting on Feb. 3 to provide a written response to the allegations of misconduct against him, and a list of witnesses, documents and records that pertain to the investigation. The committee will then conduct hearings
Ellsworth tried to speak during the committee's meeting, but was overruled by chair Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus.
The contract Ellsworth signed tasked his associate to analyze a series of judicial reform bills and their implementation after the session, but was flagged by legislative staff and senate leadership for skirting normal procurement rules. A recent report form the Legislative Audit Division concluded Ellsworth abused his powers as then-Senate president, and wasted government resources.
The next meeting of the Senate Ethics Committee will be on Feb. 3 at 11 a.m. in the old Supreme Court chambers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump wants to get rid of mail-in voting. It's become an increasingly important part of American elections.
More and more voters, including Republicans, have been opting to cast their ballots through the mail. President Trump on Monday said he would lead a movement to get rid of mail-in voting, based on the false claim that they lead to widespread fraud. 'ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING,' he wrote in a post on Truth Social in which he also railed against voting machines used across the country. Trump wrote that he would be signing an executive order to 'to help bring HONESTY' to next year's midterm elections, but didn't share any details on what that order might include or what legal authority he would rely on to issue it. The Constitution gives states the power to control their own elections within the confines of laws set out by Congress. The president does not have the ability to unilaterally change voting laws. Trump has a long history of opposition to mail-in voting, also known as absentee voting. False claims about mail ballots being rife with fraud are central to his unfounded belief that the 2020 presidential election was rigged against him. 'We gotta stop mail-in voting and the Republicans have to lead the charge,' Trump told reporters at the White House Monday. 'If you [end] mail in voting, you're not gonna have many Democrats get elected.' It is true that Democrats voted by mail in much larger numbers than Republicans during the 2020 election, but that discrepancy was largely attributable to the unique circumstances of the COVID pandemic, along with Trump's persistent criticism of the practice in the months before Election Day. Historically, mail ballots have not given either party a strong partisan advantage. The GOP also closed, or in some states even flipped, the mail-in voting gap during last year's presidential race. Trump's renewed focus on mail-in voting seemed to come after his conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their summit in Alaska last week to discuss a potential end to the war in Ukraine. 'Vladimir Putin, smart guy, said you can't have an honest election with mail-in voting,' he told Fox News host Sean Hannity in his first interview after the summit. During the Fox News interview, he also falsely claimed that the U.S. is 'the only country in the world' that allows mail-in voting because it's so rife with fraud. In fact, dozens of countries permit at least some voters to cast their ballots through the mail. Growing importance There has been limited use of absentee ballots since the earliest days of the United States, but the practice has become much more common in recent decades. The share of ballots cast by mail during presidential election years doubled between 2000 and 2016, reaching 21% during Trump's first successful presidential run, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Four years later, concerns about COVID infection and more permissive absentee ballot rules caused the use of mail-in voting to spike dramatically. More than 40% of ballots cast in the 2020 race were sent through the mail. Mail-in voting declined to 29% of all ballots last year, but that was still well above any previous non-pandemic year on record. Every state allows mail-in voting to a certain extent, but access to absentee ballots varies a lot. Some states require anyone who wants to vote by mail to provide a valid excuse for why they're unable to cast their ballot in person. About two dozen states allow anyone to apply for a mail-in ballot without providing a reason. A handful of states conduct what are known as 'all-mail' elections, where people can still vote in person if they choose, but ballots are automatically sent to all registered voters. States can also have very different rules for when absentee ballots must be requested, when they must be received and when they can be counted. Fraud in American elections is exceedingly rare, regardless of how votes are cast. Experts have found that mail-in ballots do have a slightly elevated rate of fraud compared to in-person voting, but the overall numbers are far too low to have had a meaningful effect on any election, let alone a presidential race in which more than 150 million ballots are cast. A database of known electoral fraud incidents compiled by the staunchly conservative Heritage Foundation found just 378 cases of mail-in voting fraud in the U.S. since 1982, a time period in which more than 1.2 billion votes were cast in presidential elections alone. GOP attitudes shifting Trump's opinion of mail-in voting hasn't changed, but that's not the case with members of his party. Republican voters have almost completely flipped their views on the practice over the past few years. Less than one in five GOP voters said they were confident that mail-in ballots were counted accurately in the wake of Trump's loss in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center. After his victory last year, however, 72% of Republicans said they had faith that mail-in votes were fairly counted. Confidence among Democrats also shifted, dropping from 95% in 2020 to 78% last year. It remains to be seen what will happen to public opinion in the wake of Trump's new attacks on mail-in voting. It's also unclear how much, if at all, he might be able to limit access to absentee ballots through executive action. Any steps he does attempt to take will likely face an immediate legal challenge.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Lawmaker spends night in Texas Capitol, and could stay longer. Here's why.
A Texas state lawmaker who spent the night on the floor of the Austin statehouse overnight into Aug. 19 plans to stay even longer as she refuses to accept a Republican order demanding all Democrats be monitored by police officers. Democratic State Rep. Nicole Collier is hunkering down in the Texas Capitol building in protest of Republican leadership assigning law enforcement officers to monitor the state's Democratic caucus, after dozens fled the state for two weeks in attempts to halt a vote on new congressional maps that would advantage the GOP in next year's elections. Collier, the former chair of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus who is serving her seventh two-year term representing Fort Worth, refused to agree to the police monitor, remaining in the Capitol in protest. She has been livestreaming herself for hours on X, in an otherwise largely empty chamber, and posted a photo of herself sleeping on a chair with a blanket and eye mask early on Tuesday, Aug. 19. "This was my night, bonnet and all, in the #txlege," she said in the post. Collier said in a video on X that two other Democratic state representatives, Gene Wu and Vince Perez, joined her overnight, all of them sleeping in chairs on the State House floor. Collier told NBC News that she doesn't plan to leave until Democratic lawmakers are freed from security shadowing. The Texas House is set to reconvene on Wednesday, Aug. 20. "What matters to me is making sure that I resist and fight back against and push back," Collier told Reuters from the Capitol in an interview on Aug. 18. Fallout from Texas redistricting fight Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives returned to Austin on Monday, Aug. 18, ending the stalemate that ballooned into a multistate partisan battle. Leadership of several other states have threatened to redraw their congressional maps in response to Texas Republicans' plans, which could end up adding five more GOP seats to Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and widen the party's narrow majority. Gavin Newsom, the governor of Democratic stronghold California, announced Aug. 14 the state will hold a special election to re-draw their own maps, in a bid to add more blue seats in response to Texas' moves. As the Democrats settled back in after their absence, Republican Speaker Dustin Burrows implemented a condition for the returned lawmakers that would make it harder for them to flee a second time. Burrows said Democrats who had left the state but returned would only be allowed to leave the House chambers if they agreed to be released into the custody of an agent from the Texas Department of Public Safety, who would ensure they are present at House sessions going forward. Collier's overnight stay is in protest of these conditions, which she refused to agree to. 'Rep. Collier's choice to stay and not sign the permission slip is well within her rights under the House Rules," Burrows said in a statement to USA TODAY. "I am choosing to spend my time focused on moving the important legislation on the call to overhaul camp safety, provide property tax reform and eliminate the STAAR test − the results Texans care about." Burrows' conditions are just the latest example of Republicans employing law enforcement against the Democrats amid the weeks-long battle. At one point, the state's Republican governor, Greg Abbott, said any lawmaker who fundraised or solicited money to pay a $500-per-day fine on absent legislators could violate bribery laws and called them "potential out-of-state felons." Early in their exodus, Abbott issued arrest warrants, which called for the Texas Department of Public Safety to "locate, arrest, and return to the House chamber any member who has abandoned their duty to Texans," though no arrests were made. Contributing: Erin Mansfield, USA TODAY; Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her atkapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
If Democrats succeed in midterms, they're coming for Kristi Noem
Hakeem Jeffries promised that the Homeland Security secretary would be among the first "hauled up" to Capitol Hill for oversight hearings if House Democrats win a majority in 2026. If the Democrats take back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026, one member of the Trump administration is going to be spending a lot of time on Capitol Hill. Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will be among the first Cabinet officials to be "hauled up" to Congress to face hearings, according to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Speaking on a recent episode of "The Bulwark Podcast," Jeffries promised "aggressive oversight activity" would center around Noem if the balance of power changes after the midterms. 'It's my expectation that Kristi Noem will be one of the first people hauled up to Congress shortly after the gavels change hands," he said. Read more: Kristi Noem slams 'South Park' for 'petty' and 'lazy' spoof of her: 'Only the liberals' The intent of the investigations, he said, would be "to get a real understanding for the American people" of what Jeffries called "the lack of respect for due process, for the rule of law, the unleashing of masked agents on law-abiding immigrant communities, and the disappearing of people in some instances, to other countries without any real evidence that criminal behavior took place." As the head of DHS, Noem, the former Republican governor of South Dakota, spearheads the White House's immigration enforcement agenda, which has drawn intense criticism from advocates and progressive lawmakers. Though congressional Republicans ultimately approved her to her post, she struggled during her confirmation hearings. In one instance, she couldn't identify a basic constitutional right that requires law enforcement officers to justify prisoners' continued confinement. Read more: Kristi Noem botches definition of 'habeas corpus' at Senate hearing On the podcast, Jeffries suggested two notable House Democrats would spearhead the efforts investigating DHS. One would be Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, who helped lead the bipartisan Jan. 6 select committee and would serve as head of the House's Homeland Security Committee. The other would be Jamie Raskin D-Maryland, who would be in charge of the House Oversight Committee. "We'll figure out what the formulation looks like," Jeffries said.
