ADVERTISEMENT

What's going on in Montana?

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
123,521
97,130
113
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Libertarians lined up with Democrats on Friday against a proposal that would effectively block third party candidates from next year’s Montana U.S. Senate election, as Republicans try to consolidate opposition to incumbent Jon Tester in a race pivotal for control of the Senate.

Republicans want to alter the 2024 Senate primary in Montana so that only the top two candidates, no matter their party, advance to the November election. Past races for Tester’s seat were close enough that many Republicans blamed third party candidates for draining away potential GOP votes and giving the Democrat the victory.

Critics blasted the proposal during a Montana House committee meeting as a blatant attempt to rig the election.

“It will completely block us out,” said Montana Libertarian Party Chairman Sid Daoud. “It’s going to eliminate any third party or independent candidate from moving to the general election.”

Democrats hold a narrow 51-49 U.S. Senate majority heading into the election. They will be defending 23 seats including in some states — Montana, West Virginia and Ohio – that have grown increasingly Republican. The GOP will be defending 10 seats and also trying to flip seats in swing states such as Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Republicans are eager to deny Tester a fourth term after GOP candidates have dominated recent elections in Montana. Tester is the only Democrat now holding a statewide political office in Montana.

The primary measure currently applies only to the 2024 election, but lawmakers are considering an amendment to the bill that would make it apply to future Senate races in Montana. Primary races for other seats would be unchanged, with voters in each qualifying political party continuing to select their own candidates for the general election.

The Montana House State Administration Committee planned to vote on the measure, and the amendment, on Monday.

The state Senate approved the 2024 primary change by a 27-23 vote last week. Seven Republicans joined all of the chamber’s Democrats in voting against the measure.

Republican state Sen. Greg Hertz, who sponsored the bill, said he wanted to stop the GOP and Democrats alike from trying to manipulate elections by stealthily promoting third party candidates.

Both major parties sought to use third parties to their advantage in past elections.

During one of last year’s U.S. House elections, a Democratic-linked group in Washington, D.C., sent mailers promoting Libertarian candidate John Lamb as the race’s “true conservative” in an effort to peel away conservative votes.

Liberal-backed groups used similar tactics during Montana’s 2012 and 2018 U.S. Senate races.

In the 2020 race, the Republican Party bankrolled a $100,000 signature-gathering effort to put the Montana Green Party on the ballot. The state Supreme Court removed the Green Party after hundreds of people sought to withdraw their signatures upon learning the GOP was behind the effort.

No one has claimed responsibility for a 2018 signature-gathering effort to get the Green Party on the ballot. That effort was overturned when a judge invalidated enough signatures so the party didn’t qualify.

“Some major parties probably want to continue doing this, including my own,” Hertz said Friday. “Let’s get away from this, what the two major parties are doing in Montana.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana lawmakers moved one step closer Thursday to passing a bill to ban TikTok from operating in the state, a move that’s bound to face legal challenges but also serve as a testing ground for the TikTok-free America that many national lawmakers have envisioned.

Montana’s proposal, which has backing from the state’s GOP-controlled legislature, is more sweeping than bans in place in nearly half the states and the U.S. federal government that prohibit TikTok on government devices.

The House endorsed the bill 60-39 on Thursday. A final House vote will likely take place Friday before the bill goes to Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte. He has banned TikTok on government devices in Montana. The Senate passed the bill 30-20 in March.

TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese tech company ByteDance, has been under intense scrutiny over concerns it could hand over user data to the Chinese government or push pro-Beijing propaganda and misinformation on the platform. Leaders at the FBI, CIA and numerous lawmakers of both parties have raised those concerns but haven’t presented any evidence to prove it has happened.

Supporters of a ban point to two Chinese laws that compel companies in the country to cooperate with the government on state intelligence work. They also point out other troubling episodes, such as a disclosure by ByteDance in December that it fired four employees who accessed the IP addresses and other data of two journalists while attempting to uncover the source of a leaked report about the company.

Congress is considering legislation that doesn’t call out TikTok, but gives the Commerce Department the ability to restrict foreign threats on tech platforms. That bill is being backed by the White House, but it has received pushback from privacy advocates, right-wing commentators and others who say the language is too broad.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen urged state lawmakers to pass the bill because he wasn’t sure Congress would act quickly on a federal ban.

“I think Montana’s got an opportunity here to be a leader,” Knudsen, a Republican, told a House committee in March. He says the app is a tool used by the Chinese government to spy on Montanans.

Montana’s ban would not take effect until January 2024 and would be void if Congress passes a ban or if TikTok severs its Chinese connections.

The bill would prohibit downloads of TikTok in Montana and would fine any “entity” — an app store or TikTok — $10,000 per day for each time someone “is offered the ability” to access the social media platform or download the app. The penalties would not apply to users.

Opponents argued the bill amounted to government overreach and that residents could easily circumvent the proposed ban by using a Virtual Private Network. A VPN encrypts internet traffic and makes it more difficult for third parties to track online activities, steal data and determine a person’s location.

At a hearing for the bill in March, a representative from the tech trade group TechNet said app stores also “do not have the ability to geofence” apps on a state by state basis and that it would be impossible for its members, like Apple and Google, to prevent TikTok from being downloaded in Montana.

Knudsen said Thursday the geofencing technology is used with online sports gambling apps, which he said are deactivated in states where online gambling is illegal. Ashley Sutton, TechNet’s executive director for Washington state and the northwest, said in a statement Thursday that the “responsibility should be on an app to determine where it can operate, not an app store.”

“We’ve expressed these concerns to lawmakers. We hope the governor will work with lawmakers to amend the legislation to ensure companies that aren’t intended targets of the legislation” aren’t affected, Sutton said.

TikTok said in a statement it will “continue to fight for TikTok users and creators in Montana whose livelihoods and First Amendment rights are threatened by this egregious government overreach.”

Some opponents of the bill have argued the state wasn’t looking to ban other social media apps that collect similar types of data from their users.

“We also believe this is a blatant exercise of censorship and is an egregious violation of Montanans’ free speech rights,” said Keegan Medrano with the ACLU of Montana.

Democratic Rep. Katie Sullivan offered an amendment Thursday to broaden the ban to include any social media app that collected personal information and transferred it to a foreign adversary, such as Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, along with China. The amendment was narrowly rejected 48-51.

Supporters of the bill said it made sense to target TikTok first because of specific concerns with China and that it was a step in the right direction even if it doesn’t address challenges related to other social media companies.

TikTok has been pushing back against the bill. The company, which has 150 million users in the U.S., has encouraged users in the state to speak out against the bill and hired lobbyists to do so as well. It has also purchased billboards, run full-page newspaper ads and has a website opposing Montana’s legislation. Some ads placed in local newspapers highlight how local businesses were able to use the app to drive sales.

The bill would “show Montana doesn’t support entrepreneurs in our own state,” Shauna White Bear, who owns White Bear Moccasins, said during a March 28 hearing. She noted her business receives much more engagement on TikTok than on other social media sites.

Knudsen, the attorney general whose office drafted the bill, said he expects the bill to face legal challenges if it passes.

“Frankly, I think it probably needs the courts to step in here,” he said. “This is a really interesting, novel legal question that I think is ripe for some new jurisprudence.”

The Montana bill isn’t the first blanket ban the company has faced. In 2020, then-President Donald Trump issued executive orders that banned the use of TikTok and the Chinese messaging platform WeChat. Those efforts were nixed by the courts and shelved by the Biden administration.

TikTok continued negotiations with the administration on the security concerns tied to the app. Amid rising geopolitical tensions with China, the Biden administration more recently has threatened it could ban the app if the company’s Chinese owners don’t sell their stakes. To avoid either outcome, TikTok has been trying to sell a data safety proposal called “Project Texas” that would route all its U.S. user data to servers operated by the software giant Oracle.

 
Since no one answered it in the other thread, I guess I’ll ask the same question again here.

What’s California’s reasoning for using the exact same process?
 
Since no one answered it in the other thread, I guess I’ll ask the same question again here.

What’s California’s reasoning for using the exact same process?
To keep the majority republican populace from replacing them.
 
That would be simply more typical bullshit means of trying to hold onto power by the craven and authoritarian GOP of 2023.

But it's so short sighted. Demographics are against them. If the Rebups don't do something soon to convince younger voters that they care about civil rights, the environment, and sensible gun restrictions, then they're going to lose.
 
I think it goes 4th of July 1863 (Vicksburg and Gettysburg), Reagan saying “there you go again,” and that’s basically it as far as being a republican. Those are the only highlights on the Republicans’ greatest hits tape. Like they’re Husker fans waiting for 94-95 to happen again.

What else is there? Trump making fun of retarded people? Bush asking is our children learning and lying us into a pair of wars for trillions of dollars? “Read my lips, no new taxes?” “I’m not a crook?”

It’s been slim pickings.
 
Uh, Jon Tester is a Dem, in a Dem US Senate, so your comment makes no sense.
I am sorry you can’t read.

“Republicans want to alter the 2024 Senate primary in Montana so that only the top two candidates, no matter their party, advance to the November election. Past races for Tester’s seat were close enough that many Republicans blamed third party candidates for draining away potential GOP votes and giving the Democrat the victory.”
 
I’m beyond tired of the minority party constantly finding ways to win and maintain power. Tester is a solid Senator.
 
Since no one answered it in the other thread, I guess I’ll ask the same question again here.

What’s California’s reasoning for using the exact same process?

Schwarzenegger got the legislator to pass that law because he thought it would encourage more moderate candidates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869
Schwarzenegger got the legislator to pass that law because he thought it would encourage more moderate candidates.
Arnold supported the change, but it had to pass both houses of the state legislature and then also a statewide referendum in order to become law.

And that was 12 years ago. If Democrats didn’t like the system they could easily change it.

Washington state also uses the Top Two Primary system.
 
Arnold supported the change, but it had to pass both houses of the state legislature and then also a statewide referendum in order to become law.

And that was 12 years ago. If Democrats didn’t like the system they could easily change it.

Washington state also uses the Top Two Primary system.
And it sucks. Especially if you’re intentionally doing it to kill what the people want. Kill it everywhere, it’s bad policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnole03
Especially if you’re intentionally doing it to kill what the people want.
If a candidate gets a plurality of the vote in the general election but not a majority then is it truly “what the people want”?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the logic. If indeed the Republicans lost some of these elections because of 3rd parties dragging away votes, and you eliminate those parties, how does that guarantee that they'll vote Republican instead? What if they sit out the election? Same result, right?--the GOP doesn't get enough votes.
 
Arnold supported the change, but it had to pass both houses of the state legislature and then also a statewide referendum in order to become law.

And that was 12 years ago. If Democrats didn’t like the system they could easily change it.

Washington state also uses the Top Two Primary system.

Neither party really wanted it but passed anyway. It has mostly worked as intended despite democrats controlling the state. Washington I believe only uses it for non partisan elections.
 
It’s literally the only function of government, jackwagon.

The purpose of government is to consolidate permissioned use of force through mandatory collection of funds to achieve core functions including but not limited to safety, trade, and infrastructure.

Governments job isn’t to make life better. That’s a side effect, not the core directive.
 
Washington I believe only uses it for non partisan elections.
It’s actually the other way. Washington uses it for all elections except President and also non-partisan elections such as judges.

For example, in last year’s Senate race there was one primary for all candidates. There were about 18 declared candidates - several Democrats, several Republicans, and several independent or third party candidates.

Incumbent Patty Murray (D) and Republican Tiffany Smiley were the top two vote-getters in the primary, so they faced off in the general election with no other candidates allowed.
 
The purpose of government is to consolidate permissioned use of force through mandatory collection of funds to achieve core functions including but not limited to safety, trade, and infrastructure.

Governments job isn’t to make life better. That’s a side effect, not the core directive.
You got a thesaurus out and said exactly what I did. Neat.

The republicans aren’t doing any of that either, nor have they even attempted to for decades.

Have whatever last word you want here. Not getting dragged into a stupid semantics argument.
 
It’s actually the other way. Washington uses it for all elections except President and also non-partisan elections such as judges.

For example, in last year’s Senate race there was one primary for all candidates. There were about 18 declared candidates - several Democrats, several Republicans, and several independent or third party candidates.

Incumbent Patty Murray (D) and Republican Tiffany Smiley were the top two vote-getters in the primary, so they faced off in the general election with no other candidates allowed.

That’s right, I was thinking of Nebraska. Don’t know how I confused those two states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869
You got a thesaurus out and said exactly what I did. Neat.

The republicans aren’t doing any of that either, nor have they even attempted to for decades.

Have whatever last word you want here. Not getting dragged into a stupid semantics argument.
You want the government to wipe your ass for you.
 
You got a thesaurus out and said exactly what I did. Neat.

The republicans aren’t doing any of that either, nor have they even attempted to for decades.

Have whatever last word you want here. Not getting dragged into a stupid semantics argument.

I was agreeing with you and relied to the wrong post. My bad!
 
  • Love
Reactions: FlickShagwell
You want the government to wipe your ass for you.
Amazon Prime Video GIF by The Man in the High Castle
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT