House GOP passes bill restricting Montana voters of "unsound mind"
Feb. 26—A House bill to impose new restrictions on voters of "unsound mind" could affect hundreds of patients in the Montana State Hospital and other state-run facilities.
While Montana code has long prohibited citizens serving sentences in "penal institutions" and those of "unsound mind" from voting, the state has never clarified what these terms mean. Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, said the omission creates a work-around in the voting system for patients serving felony convictions in the Montana State Hospital.
"This bill simply prevents convicted felons from exploiting a loophole that has allowed them to vote," said Mitchell in his opening remarks for House Bill 395.
The Department of Justice requested the bill after a patient serving a felony conviction at the Montana State Hospital filed a lawsuit last fall, claiming Anaconda-Deer Lodge County had violated his voting rights. The case remains unresolved, but a district judge temporarily restored the plaintiff's voting rights for the 2024 election after the state Attorney General's Office admitted that the hospital did not fit the definition of a penal institution and that a court had not found the plaintiff to be of unsound mind.
HB 395 targets similar cases by codifying new definitions for the terms "unsound mind" and "penal institution" in state voting laws and outlining a court process by which defendants may be declared of unsound mind.
While Republicans supported the legislation as a simple solution to a long-term problem, Democrats likened the bill and its implications to Pandora's box. Of particular concern was the bill's definition of unsound mind.
"'Unsound mind' means a person is incapable of normally managing affairs in a reasonable manner," reads the bill. "The condition exists when the intellectual powers of a person are fundamentally lacking or when a person is incapable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life."
As currently written, the definition would only be applied to residents at state facilities like the Montana State Hospital. The bill also includes a provision automatically restoring voting rights upon release, but Democrats remained skeptical.
"This gives a lot of power to the courts to decide who can and cannot vote," said Rep. Peter Strand, D-Bozeman. Strand questioned whether people with dementia and similar illnesses might be considered unfit to vote.
Rep. James Reavis, D-Billings made similar observations in testimony, noting that the bill did not provide protections for patients in state facilities without criminal convictions and that the restoration provision could be easily rescinded in a future legislative session.
"We could be on the path to permanent disenfranchisement of voting rights, and I don't think that's something we should do," said Reavis.
Mitchell claimed other state laws had no issues implementing similar definitions. In email correspondence with the Daily Inter Lake, Mitchell cited Idaho and Utah as examples though neither state references individuals of unsound mind in state voting laws. He also mentioned Minnesota, which has a statue stating that individuals "found by a court of law to be legally incompetent" cannot vote, but Minnesota voting codes do not define the term "legally incompetent."
Mitchell did not directly respond to an inquiry about possible amendments to the definition, though he maintained his assertion that the claims of opponents are unfounded.
The bill passed the House in a 54 — 45 vote on Monday. A hearing in the Senate has not yet been announced.
Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at hsmalley@dailyinterlake.com or 758-4433.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kristi Noem defends the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in an interview over the weekend that National Guard troops deployed amid protests in the Los Angeles area are for "the safety of the communities that are being impacted by these riots." "They're there at the direction of the president in order to keep peace and allow people to be able to protest, but also to keep law and order," Noem told Margaret Brennan, moderator of "Face the Nation" on CBS News. President Donald Trump ordered about 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed as police in riot gear clashed with protesters opposed to the actions his administration has taken against undocumented immigrants. However, California Gov. Gavin Newsom formally requested that Trump withdraw the troops, writing that their deployment "seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation." "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved," Newsom said in a June 8 X post. "This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed." In response to a question about Newsom's criticism of Trump, Noem said that "if (Newsom) was doing his job, then people wouldn't have gotten hurt the last couple of days." "The president knows that (Newsom) makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity," she said. "That's one of the reasons why these National Guard soldiers are being federalized, so they can use their special skill set to keep peace." Noem, though, previously threatened then-President Joe Biden when Democrats said he should federalize the National Guard in Texas in response to the state's anti-immigration efforts, USA TODAY reported. "If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states' rights," Noem said in an X post on Feb. 6, 2024, when she was still governor of South Dakota. In the CBS News interview, Noem also criticized Minnesota's response to the George Floyd protests in 2020. "We're not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen," she said. Noem, 53, began her political career in 2006 when she was elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives. She served two terms. In 2010, she successfully ran for South Dakota's lone seat in the U.S House of Representatives. Noem served four terms in the House before taking on another role: South Dakota's governor. She was elected as the state's first female governor in 2019. Noem was confirmed as Homeland Security secretary on Jan. 25. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: What did Kristi Noem say about the Los Angeles protests?
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California is the fight the White House wants
President Trump is getting the fight with California he wants as Democrats in the state criticize his decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles without local approval to deal with protests surrounding raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The unfolding events hit at the heart of key issues that Trump basks in: immigration and fighting liberal California Democrats. You can also add in law and order, as Trump and his team accuse California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and other local officials of being too soft on demonstrators destroying property and setting cars on fire. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Sunday reposted several images meant to convey the chaos in LA, including one showing huge plumes of smoke billowing from a burning vehicle as demonstrators watched, with one with holding Mexican flag. The post read, 'Let's check in on how LAPD's management of the 'protests' is going,' and criticized Newsom's slamming of Trump's decision to send the guard. A second Miller repost was from his White House colleague Taylor Budowich, who sent out a similar video of a masked protestor on a car surrounded by other burning cars and demonstrators in the streets. 'Democrat management,' the post said. Newsom has said California will sue the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard, while the White House maintains Trump intervened at the right time to restore law and order and that the violent attacks had already escalated before he stepped in. 'Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He's exacerbated the conditions. He's, you know, lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard — an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,' Newsom said on MSNBC. Just a few days ago, Trump was battling negative coverage of his public feud with erstwhile ally Elon Musk. The violence in LA allowed him to rapidly shift gears and put much of the focus on immigration even as his team pushed Congress to pass his signature legislation — which had triggered the battle with Musk. 'The riots in Los Angeles prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources. America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on the social platform X, calling for Senate passage of the House-passed 'one, big beautiful bill' with its funding measures for border security. The story even served to bring Musk back into the fold, with the tech mogul sending a number of supportive messages of the president that criticized Newsom and demonstrators. Trump ran on a platform of mass deportations. Since then, ICE raids, arrests of migrants at immigration courts and lawsuits over deportations have been a major part of his first few months in office. His administration has blamed Democrats, especially Biden, for allowing what they call an 'invasion' of migrants coming in at the nation's southern border, and White House briefings have often begun with spotlighting a deported migrant who committed a crime in the U.S. The images of masked demonstrators with Mexican flags falls right into this argument. That the protests are in California is also good for Trump. Trump has flirted with the idea of fining or nixing federal funding for the state, lashing out earlier this month after a transgender athlete was allowed to compete and win at a high school track and field meet. He also blamed Newsom, who is widely considered to be eying a presidential bid, for the wildfires that raged in the Los Angeles area in January and made his first trip as president to California to meet with him and survey damage. Newsom then visited Trump at the White House in February about aid for wildfire victims. The White House is now blaming Newsom for the protests in Los Angeles, bashing him for suing the administration instead of focusing on solutions. 'Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership is directly responsible for the lawless riots and violent attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles. Instead of filing baseless lawsuits meant to score political points with his left-wing base, Newsom should focus on protecting Americans by restoring law and order to his state,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. Trump on Sunday didn't rule out using the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military and federalize the National Guard in the event of an insurrection. He considered invoking the law in his first term during the 2020 protests over police brutality, but officials like former Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back at the time. 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden and his auto pen,' Trump said Sunday. The president also said that if California officials stand in the way of federal officials deporting migrants, they will face federal charges. 'We're just going to see what happens. If we think there's a serious insurrection … we're going to have law and order,' he said. California Democrats are responding to Trump by calling on residents to not turn to violence while protesting, arguing that the president's move to bring in the National Guard was meant to provoke the chaos. 'Angelenos — don't engage in violence and chaos. Don't give the administration what they want,' Mayor Karen Bass said on X. Similarly, Newsom warned other states about Trump federalizing the National Guard and accused him of escalating the situation. 'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,' Newsom said on X. 'He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ActBlue fires back at GOP investigation, saying it appears unconstitutional and partisan
ActBlue is fighting back against a House Republican investigation into its workings, saying the probe appears to have become an unconstitutional abuse of power to help the White House. The Democratic online fundraising platform said Monday in a letter obtained by POLITICO that it was reevaluating whether to cooperate with the ongoing congressional investigation into fraud on its platform in light of President Donald Trump's executive action to investigate potential foreign contributions on ActBlue and House Republicans' public statements supporting the White House. 'If the Committees are now working to gather information on behalf of Department of Justice prosecutors, rather than for legitimate legislative purposes, that would fundamentally transform the nature of your investigation — and violate ActBlue's constitutional rights,' ActBlue's lawyers wrote in the letter Monday to GOP Reps. Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil. The allegations are an escalation in the conflict between House Republicans and ActBlue, the behemoth Democratic fundraising platform that has long been in GOP crosshairs as it has helped the left build a massive fundraising advantage. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones told POLITICO last month that ActBlue believes the platform has 'nothing to hide' but needs to better communicate its role in light of the attacks. In the letter, lawyers representing ActBlue ask the congressional committees investigating the platform to clarify the purpose of their work. They argue public statements from Jordan, Comer and Steil indicate they are seeking to help the Trump Justice Department's separate investigation into ActBlue, rather than carry out congressional oversight. And they note that the "selective focus" of the investigation does not appear to include WinRed, the GOP's primary online fundraising counterpart — and thus may be intended to hurt Democrats, not provide legitimate oversight of American elections. 'The Committees' selective focus on ActBlue also suggests that the investigation may be a partisan effort directed at harming political opponents rather than gathering facts to assist in lawmaking efforts,' the letter reads. 'Such an action would raise substantial First Amendment concerns.' Spokespeople for the GOP committees investigating ActBlue did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday afternoon. A spokesperson for ActBlue also did not immediately comment. The letter comes as the Trump administration is also going after ActBlue. Trump signed a memorandum in April ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the potential use of foreign 'straw' donations in online fundraising, citing concerns about foreign influence in elections based in part on the work of the GOP-led congressional committees. ActBlue was the only platform named in the order. The memorandum calls for Bondi to report back in 90 days, which would be late July. Under federal law, only U.S. citizens and green card holders can give to campaigns and political action committees. Republicans have long argued that ActBlue, which processed billions of dollars in donations for Democrats last year, is not strict enough in weeding out potential foreign contributions. ActBlue has countered that it has processes to catch illegal donation attempts and that similar challenges exist on other platforms, including WinRed. The platform's lawyers also suggested that ActBlue's further cooperation with the congressional probes could depend on the extent of the committees' work with the Justice Department. 'In light of your public statements, it is essential that we receive more information about your agreement to coordinate the Committees' activities with the Executive Branch, so that ActBlue may properly evaluate its ongoing efforts to cooperate with the Committees,' the platform's lawyers wrote. ActBlue previously turned over thousands of pages of internal documents to the committees, some voluntarily, and then later under subpoena. The committees released an interim report in April that cited cases of fraud identified in the ActBlue documents as a means to argue that the platform had an 'unserious' approach to fraud prevention.
