The nation's highest court has declined to hear a case about Montana voting laws which would have disproportionately affected Native people.
Last year, Montana's Supreme Court decided two laws passed in 2021 to ban same-day voter registration and paid absentee ballot collection were unconstitutional.
Alex Rate, deputy director and legal director of the ACLU of Montana, said people who face too many costs to voting often do not. For those who already face barriers like long distances to elections offices or no residential mail delivery, the laws could have tipped the scales. Rate argued it was the intention of the bill's backers.
"That's what we saw with these laws, was a very deliberate attempt to make it so difficult for people to vote that they would stay home," Rate asserted.
Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week opted not to hear it. Rate noted the high court does not have jurisdiction to pick up a case on state voting laws.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, states passed almost 80 restrictive voting laws between 2021 and 2024, nearly three times the number passed in the previous few years. So far in Montana's 2025 legislative session, a half-dozen voting-related bills have been introduced by lawmakers, all Republicans.
"We have repeatedly seen Montana courts strike down bills that the Legislature has passed as unconstitutional," Rate pointed out. "And yet they continue to advance things that are patently unlawful."
Rate described the citizens' rights written in the Montana Constitution as "ironclad," including the right to vote.
get more stories like this via email
Minnesota and the nation are feeling the emotional weight of political violence after this weekend's assassination of a top Democratic state lawmaker and the attack of a fellow legislator.
Rep. Melissa Hortman, D-Brooklyn Park, who had served as Minnesota House Speaker, was killed inside her home along with her husband. In the nearby suburb of Champlin, Sen. John Hoffman, D-Champlin, and his wife were also shot and wounded. Police call the shootings "politically motivated."
The incidents follow a trend of political violence beginning with this spring's arson attack at the Pennsylvania Governor's mansion.
David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, said the current mood somewhat mirrors the violence toward prominent leaders seen in the 1960s.
"Once violence starts to occur, people get used to violence or it becomes part of the game," Schultz explained. "That seems to be where we're degenerating right now."
The events follow last year's assassination attempt on President Donald Trump on the campaign trail, along with increased threats against poll workers. Schultz noted in a healthy democracy, ballots, elections and other engagement tools resolve differences, not violence. He worries the attacks will discourage elected officials from talking with constituents and curtail open meetings.
Schultz pointed out society has grown used to a more isolated way of life, pointing to shopping habits and some people choosing to live in areas cut off from those with different views. Making matters worse, he added, political messages spread through social media fuel misinformation and radicalization.
"Falsity travels more rapidly, more deeply than truth," Schultz observed. "The relative anonymity or distance of the social media also emboldens people to radicalize. Put all that altogether, that gets us part of the recipe of where we are in our society right now."
Schultz added he is not optimistic heightened tensions and political violence will end anytime soon. He said there are some encouraging signs younger voters will not embrace identity politics and demonize their political opponents, but he believes the patterns have shifted, delaying a return to a moderate political tone.
get more stories like this via email
It is estimated 3,000 to 4,000 Hoosiers marched around the Indiana Statehouse during the "No Kings" protest in downtown Indianapolis on Saturday.
The demonstration took place on President Donald Trump's 79th birthday and the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, two milestones marked by a military parade in Washington, D.C. Protesters in Indiana criticized what they called authoritarian behavior and attacks on democracy.
Micah Pulliam said the concerns drove her to the march.
"America hasn't had a king," Pulliam pointed out. "We rejected kings years and years and years ago, and Trump is acting like a king, like he can make all the decisions and what he wants. That's not how America works."
Indiana State Police detained one person after a scuffle with a counter-protester. No other arrests were reported. Supporters of the President said Trump is defending constitutional values and using lawful powers to advance his agenda.
The 50501 movement organized the "No Kings" demonstrations. The group began calling for nationwide demonstrations against Trump in February, organizing hundreds of protests throughout the previous four months.
Mary Sutton came from Carmel and called on elected officials to act.
"The people in the House and Senate need to grow a backbone and the courts need to stand solid," Sutton urged. "If a judge makes a judgment, then the people need to follow it or go to jail."
The protest ended peacefully by midafternoon. The Indianapolis event was one of more than 2,000 "No Kings" rallies throughout the country.
get more stories like this via email
A government watchdog group is joining others in raising concerns about last-minute additions to the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate. The Campaign Legal Center says one provision would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders. It comes after federal courts have thwarted some of President Donald Trump's recent policies.
Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center president, said the "Founding Fathers" were trying to prevent a president from behaving like a "king" when they established three separate but equal branches of government.
"What's happened here is that members of the Republican party in Congress think their job is, or their duty is, to support the presidency whatever they do and not act as a check on the presidency," he explained.
Trump has repeatedly attacked judges who oppose his policies and his administration has refused to abide by their orders - even those issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. Potter believes the White House is trying to expand and consolidate executive powers over Congress and the courts - which he says poses major risks to American democracy and the rule of law.
A second provision inserted in the bill at the last minute has raised the ire of both Democrats and Republicans. It includes a 10-year moratorium on state and local governments to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns and elections.
Catherine Hinckley Kelley, senior director, Policy & Strategic Partnerships with the Campaign Legal Center, said 20 states, including New Mexico, already have adopted such laws.
"States have acted, but now with this provision in the reconciliation bill, states would be unable to enforce those laws and limit the use of AI in elections," she explained.
Congress has not passed its own A-I regulation bill. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA, a fierce supporter of President Trump, said Tuesday she would not have voted for the bill if she had known about the A-I provision, contending it would violate state rights.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
