From legislative secrecy to Constitutional sunlight
Only a handful of us who served in the legislature under the old 1889 Montana Constitution still survive. That constitution reflected the dominant power of the copper mining industry when Montana achieved statehood. It was also ridiculously verbose and prescriptive, and by the late 1960s a consensus had developed that the time had come for our 1889 Constitution to be replaced. Among the people's major concerns was the secrecy by which laws were made within the Legislature.
It was 1971 when, at 23, I took my seat in the Montana House of Representatives – the youngest member. The House chamber was overwhelming in its grandeur. What I didn't know then was that what went on in that grand place was far less grand than its setting.
Legislative bodies are organized around committees. One of my earliest experiences in a Montana Legislative committee was having the committee chair excuse all nonmembers from the committee room except two gentlemen whom I soon learned were lobbyists. They were hired by a special interest to protect that interest's affairs in the legislative process. Behind those doors, closed to citizens, these selected lobbyists freely interacted with committee members as they voted on the bills before the committee. With no experience, I simply assumed this was fine. Certainly, as the legislature's greenest newbie, I wasn't going to question it.
Fortunately, a few legislators were starting openly do so. One, was Flathead Representative James E. Murphy. Murphy had served in the Missouri legislature before relocating to Montana after World War II. He led the Montana House Judiciary Committee and was also Montana's representative on the Republican National Committee. I greatly admired Jim Murphy.
Murphy thought the 1889 Constitution was far outdated and needed to be replaced. A prime example of what needed changing was my first experiences with the public's lack of access to legislative decision-making and the open role of lobbyists in orchestrating law-making decisions behind closed doors.
Well, the committee procedure I witnessed in the 1971 legislative session could not happen in the Montana legislature of today, thanks to Montana's 1972 Constitution. It requires legislative meetings as well as other government meetings to be open to the public. No longer can lobbyists, but not the public, be allowed to meet with and impact decisions of committees behind closed doors.
Under the 1889 Constitution, legislation was routinely passed or killed by either the Montana House or Senate, with few recorded votes and no way for the folks at home to really know how their legislators had voted. Since 1972 they always can. It is constitutionally required.
Once in 1971, we house members were startled by a camera flash from the back balcony of the chamber. A photographer had taken a picture of the voting board of a vote that the 1889 Constitution allowed to be non-recorded, 'off the record,' even though that vote essentially determined the outcome of an important bill. The Speaker immediately called for the Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend the photographer's film. But the photographer was too fast and escaped, film intact, from the capitol building. When the state papers carried the picture of the voting board the following day, the votes of all legislators on that bill were revealed.
Such a dramatic act to inform the people is not needed now, thanks to the 1972 Constitution, which stipulates that any vote in the House or Senate, including committees, that could result in a bill being passed or killed must be publicly recorded.
These true-life examples directly show how much more open to the people the Montana legislature is since the adoption of our 1972 Constitution.
Bob Brown is a retired Whitefish history teacher who also serves as a Board Member of Friends of the Montana Constitution. A member of the Montana Legislature for nearly 30 years, he was also Senate President, Montana Secretary of State and Candidate for Governor. Bob also served on the Board of Trustees for the Montana Historical Society. This column on the Montana Constitution produced for this publication by the 'Friends' organization.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
5 hours ago
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity
ATLANTA -- Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies Saturday around the country. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are," said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. "For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''
Los Angeles Times
14 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
ATLANTA — Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' Well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' Well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, as its leaders have long asserted, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled political tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also counter the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the left-leaning Working Families Party. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was almost Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking the president's frequent sign-off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the civil rights movement. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman and onetime Democratic presidential candidate who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that could give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F— the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and the Democratic leader of the House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, O'Neill said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot and insurrection. In 2016, Democratic President Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. McConnell's maneuver gave one additional Supreme Court appointee to the next president — Trump. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, said Mitchell of the Working Families Party. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Rep. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs [political action committees] and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does. If you don't do politics, politics will do you.'' Barrow writes for the Associated Press.
Politico
18 hours ago
- Politico
Thanks to Gaza, It's Now Kosher to Criticize Israel
A demonstrator displays her hands painted in red to depict blood during an anti-government protest outside the Israeli Ministry of Defense headquarters in Tel Aviv on Aug. 2, 2025. | Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images Daniel W. Drezner is academic dean and distinguished professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is the author of Drezner's World . Earlier this month I attended an open town hall for my congressman, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. Since he's a moderate Democrat in a district that has been reliably Democrat for some time now, I expected that the bulk of the questions Auchincloss would receive would be variations of 'Why aren't you fighting Trump harder?' Indeed, Auchincloss' opening remarks were typical Democratic talking points including defending the Constitution, reinvigorating the Democratic Party and getting America talking again. While some constituent questions revolved around those topics as well, they were not the primary subject. The most common question from one of the most heavily Jewish congressional districts in the country was some variation of, 'What are you going to do about the starvation in Gaza?' Auchincloss is not the only representative to face angry questions about Gaza at his town halls. Furthermore, the responses to Auchincloss' stilted, minimalist answers (starvation is bad; being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian should not be mutually contradictory; Hamas has a singular responsibility to end the conflict) indicated that while there were some supporters of the current Israeli government in the audience, they were badly outnumbered by critics of Israel — and U.S. support for Israel.
