“Attorney general’s edits to constitutional initiative went too far, Montana Supreme Court rules”

AP News: Montana Supreme Court, over two dissents, sided with Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts, finding that the Montana Attorney General “went too far in editing ballot language for an initiative calling for nonpartisan court elections.” Earlier coverage of the issue is here.

“’We conclude the Attorney General’s proposed Statement does not meet the requirements of (the law), because his wording does not fairly state to the voters what is proposed within CI-132,’ Justice James Shea wrote for a four-judge majority.”

Share this:

My Contribution to NYU’s Democracy Project: “Making Civil Society Great Again to Protect the 2026 Elections”

A snippet:

What can be done? As I explained more fully in an August guest commentary in the New York Times, states, the courts, and ultimately the American people must serve as the bulwarks against election subversion. In this follow-up post, I want to explore more deeply what the American people can do, and what it means when I wrote in the Times that to “keep us from sliding further into autocracy, it is civil society we must make great again.”

American elections are hyperdecentralized and fragmented. Federal law controls some things about how elections are run, but administration is mostly a local matter, with states designating counties or other smaller units to actually run elections. It falls to election administrators and local boards, some of whom are chosen on a partisan basis, to do things like assuring there are adequate procedures protecting the chain of custody of ballots, choosing the most suitable voting machines, and setting rules for resolving challenges to ballots or voters.

These local administrators and bodies are the front line of defense against efforts to subvert election results. Subversion can happen in a number of ways including by changing voting rules to disenfranchise classes of voters, accepting non-meritorious challenges to ballots in close elections, closing or moving polling places to make it harder for people to vote, allowing federal officials near or into polling locations in ways that can intimidate voters, and much more.

Election administrators are professionals, and most are imbued with a deep commitment to free and fair elections. Partisan boards can be more of a mix in terms of their commitments. But both administrators and boards might succumb to pressure to bend or break election rules if Trump himself directs or endorses such interference in the Orwellian name of protecting “election integrity.” 

The solution is to rely on civil society. Community leaders—including business people, religious leaders, and educators—need to clearly and repeatedly call for transparency and a commitment to free and fair elections. Everyday people should be aware of decisions being made by state and local election administrators and boards, attend public meetings of these bodies, submit public comments, observe election procedures, and let everyone in charge know that anything short of free and fair elections is unacceptable….

Share this:

Judge Jerry Smith Issues His 104-Page Dissent to Yesterday’s 3-Judge District Court Holding that Texas’s Re-Redistricting is Likely an Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander. Along the Way He Calls Out the “Pernicious” and “Outrageous” Behavior of Judge Brown in the Majority

You can find the dissent at this link. It begins with a remarkable attack on Judge Brown (a Trump appointee) explaining that Smith was not responsible for any delay in issuing the decision: In my 37 years on the federal… Continue reading