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
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far' Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, says he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president (Kevin Dietsch) (Kevin Dietsch/GETTY IMAGESvia AFP) Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X, in a message that was received favorably by the White House. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. ADVERTISEMENT Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." But after Musk's expression of regret, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was "appreciative," adding that "no efforts" had been made on a threat by Trump to end some of Musk's government contracts. "The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning, and he is appreciative of it," Leavitt said. ADVERTISEMENT According to the New York Times, Musk's message followed a phone call to Trump late on Monday night. Vice President JD Vance and Chief of Staff Susan Wiles had also been working with Musk on how to broker a truce with Trump, the report said. - 'Wish him well' - In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days, with Musk describing the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. ADVERTISEMENT Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both already appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking. bur-arp/aha
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.
