by Guest Writer | Oct 20, 2024 | Elections
WTF406 is presenting both sides of the CI-126/CI-127 ballot initiatives to help our readers make a decision this election.
What is Citizens’ Initiative 126 (CI-126)?
CI-126 will change primary elections so that all qualified candidates of all parties would appear on one single ballot in June and all voters will have the freedom to choose between them. The top four candidates would then move on to the November election, where voters would choose between them.
Voters in Montana are currently forced to choose one party’s ballot to vote in primary elections – even though they might prefer candidates from different parties for different offices. CI-126 changes that so you can vote for the candidate you like best, regardless of party.
CI-126 gives Montana voters:
- Better choices on the ballot
- More freedom to vote for the person, not the party
- More voice in every tax-payer funded election
- Greater accountability over elected officials
CI-126 is endorsed by:
- Wild Montana
- Forward Montana
- Montana Federation of Public Employees
- Montana Trial Lawyers Association
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana
- Montana Women Vote
- MontPIRG
- Montana AFL-CIO
- Western Native Voice Action Fund
- Northern Plains Resource Council
- Montana Alliance for Retired Americans
- SEIU 775
- Veterans for Montana Voters
- Former Governor Steve Bullock
- Former Secretary of State Mike Cooney
- Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau
- Former Attorney General Tim Fox
- Former Lieutenant Governor Mike Cooney
- And many more
CI-126 is a simple, common-sense change that protects our democracy and gives us more responsive and representative government. We encourage every Montana voter to vote YES on CI-126 so we have better choices, more voice, and greater accountability in our elections.
What is Citizens’ Initiative 127 (CI-127)?
CI-127 requires candidates to receive a majority vote to win a General election instead of electing candidates who simply win the largest number of votes, as is current law. This measure would ensure that candidates have to appeal to a majority of their constituents by earning the support of over 50% of voters.
Majority-winner elections lead to more responsive leaders who are more representative of the majority of Montanans. There are two mechanisms for deciding a majority winner if one candidate does not receive more than 50% of the vote: a traditional runoff election or an instant runoff election.
Majority-winner elections empower voters to hold politicians accountable and force our elected officials to focus on finding solutions that benefit a majority of citizens. We encourage voters to choose majority-winner elections and vote YES on CI-127.
-Kendra Miller and Lauren Caldwell
by Guest Writer | Oct 20, 2024 | Elections
WTF406 is presenting both sides of the CI-126/CI-127 ballot initiatives to help our readers make a decision this election.
This year’s election is fast approaching. The air waves are full of ads from candidates, drowning out news about the initiatives that are on our ballot. Voters will receive a voter information pamphlet before the election, and I encourage you to read the pros and cons of these initiatives. Two of the constitutional initiatives would drastically change our election process: CI 126 and CI 127.
CI 126 changes Montana’s long-established primary election by creating a jungle primary. Instead of the voter choosing which primary ballot they want, there will be one ballot with candidates from all eligible parties including Independents. The Top 4 vote getters will move on to the general election. The initiative leaves it up to the Legislature and governor to decide the process for how candidates get on the primary ballot. The initiative also leaves it up to the Legislature and governor to decide how to break a tie.
CI 127 changes Montana’s long-established general election rules by requiring the winning candidate to get the majority of votes. If no candidate gets the majority of the votes, the Legislature and governor will decide a process for choosing the winner.
I would be less concerned if these undefined processes weren’t left to representatives often concerned with party politics to iron out. Voters should know what we’re really getting.
In addition to the confusing processes, both initiatives deserve a clearly defined, transparent process. They are concerning for several other reasons and won’t adequately address today’s political divisiveness, which is the intended goal.
Already over the last couple of Legislative Sessions, several bills that changed our election process were passed. However, most of these bills were challenged on the basis that they were not allowed by our Constitution, and the Supreme Court agreed, by overturning the bills. It is alarming to think that, if these initiatives pass, a Legislature that tried to create unconstitutional election processes would design the outcome of our election process.
These initiatives also create several other problems. If 126 passes and 127 doesn’t we could have an election where only 26% of the voters select our leader. It also provides lots of opportunities for shenanigans. The GOP party has been notorious for getting someone to file as a Green party candidate to steal votes from the Democrat candidate. If 126 passes they will recruit 1 or 2 of their own to run as a Democrat to steal votes from the legitimate Democrat candidate. Yes, I know the Democratic could do the same thing. If 127 passes, how will we decide the winner if one candidate doesn’t get more than 50% of the vote? We don’t know because the legislature and governor get to decide. Will it be rank choice, or will it be an expensive, time-consuming runoff election or will the legislature/governor decide the winner? Either way will most likely have less voters choose the winner than the current system. Runoff elections generally have lower turnouts so less voters could decide the winner. After election day who really wants to have more days of campaign ads, calls and fundraising besides the loser. Please vote no on 126 and 127.
Some have tried to suggest that this new election process would alleviate the divisiveness we are experiencing in politics today. This process doesn’t get to the root of the problem. A major cause of this divisiveness is the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by President Reagan. The Fairness Doctrine required news outlets to report both sides of an issue truthfully. Soon after it was repealed, Fox Entertainment changed its name to FOX News and began misleading listeners with sensationalized, one-sided false narratives. Many other networks started “news” programs to compete for airtime, and the term “fake news” became part of our lives. About the same time, Texas Congressman Tom Delay started a nationwide movement to gerrymander districts. He eventually went to jail, but we still suffer the consequences today.
Following the Delay playbook, the 1990 redistricting committee in Montana redrew our legislative districts. The result created numerous “safe” districts for both Democrats and Republicans. These safe districts almost guarantee that one party (or the other) wins that district. Today, we still have several safe districts for both parties. This has allowed extreme candidates from each party to win an election. Once elected, they don’t have to govern because they know they will be reelected by their party in their “safe” district. In the last few elections, the Tea Party has successfully primaried moderate Republicans. The Tea Party’s antigovernment philosophy has created havoc and gridlock. The moderate Republicans have viewed the jungle primary and majority vote as a solution to this problem.
The solution to divisiveness would be better if it focused at the root of the problems. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine requiring the “news” to report both sides of an issue truthfully. Eliminate the gerrymandered districts by recreating swing districts that will require candidates to appeal to all voters and not just their party.
-Walter Schweitzer
by Guest Writer | Sep 15, 2024 | City
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not to fully fund our public library, and a wide range of reasons have been proposed as to why the library’s funding should remain as the voters intended. I wanted to speak toward my own primary reason for 1) voting to support the library levy, and 2) why I continue to support fully funding the library.
First, my background. I moved to Great Falls in 2020 to complete my internship for my counseling degree, and currently I am a licensed professional counselor working in outpatient mental health. My wife and I rented for a year and then bought a house north of downtown. We became involved in volunteering and advocating for our unhoused neighbors in Great Falls.
With other like minded individuals, we founded Housed Great Falls, a grassroots nonprofit dedicated toward the long-term goal of building a transitional tiny house community for the unhoused. We soon discovered an immediate need that we could step into to provide warmth and safety that was not getting fully met in our community. It will come as a shock to no one who has lived here for more than a year, that our winters are brutal, but it might shock people to know that many people are still on the street year-round in Great Falls.
The Rescue Mission offers emergency cold weather services on days below freezing, officially opening their doors at 10 PM (though on particularly cold days they have opened earlier). Their restrictions are typically lower for this cold weather emergency service, and “most” unhoused people can receive this service. However, what we had found was that between the times that places like the Library and St. Vincent De Paul Angel Room closed, and when the Mission opened, people were still exposed to dangerous temperatures for periods of time that can still do a world of harm to a body. We organized cold-weather drop-in to fill this gap, hosted at the United Methodist Church and, then this past winter, at First English/Helping Hands; providing a hot meal and a safe, warm location between 5:30-9:30 PM on below freezing nights.
What we found was that, in general, when people were warm, safe, and fed, they were cooperative, polite, and grateful. We had few negative interactions with a demographic that many people find “scary” or “dangerous.” We had perhaps four calls to emergency services over a winter of being open 70 nights. Consider the number of calls that would have been made if people were not there. When people were offered a safe and accepting space to exist, they were not someplace else trespassing, drinking, panhandling, stealing, etc… They, and the community as a whole, were SAFER.
This brings me back to the Library. The Library is a safe, warm, and accepting location. It is not a shelter or warming center, nor should it be, but it is a PUBLIC SPACE that is open to ANYONE who can give basic respect to the others around them. The Library providing this public space for people IS part of our public safety. When people, particularly the unhoused, are at the Library they are by default NOT doing the things that the public complains about them doing.
My general experience, both from working in mental health and volunteering with the unhoused, is that, when people are given respect and dignity, they respond in a positive manner. There are exceptions of course, but this has seemed to be just that, the exception. Our experience running the cold weather drop-in for two winters now showed this; a “rough” and “dangerous” population was calm and respectful, because they were treated how we would want to be treated.
I voted primarily for the Library levy so that they could extend their hours to be open every day of the week, and later each day; in large part so that community members with nowhere else to go would have a safe and warm location to be. But the library benefits so many more people than just the unhoused or downtrodden; though I think there we see the largest impacts. But even if it only impacted them, it still has a positive impact on my life. And I strongly believe that treating people with dignity and respect, and helping them to meet their basic needs, will always be a better long term option than fining, arresting, and jailing them; not to mention being far less expensive.
The idea of public safety based solely on more police is a fantasy, and an Orwellian one at that. Public safety might very well involve police and jails (perhaps in smaller quantities than we have now), but it also involves solving the issues at the root of the problem. Simply hiring more police and building more jails deals with the symptoms, but not the root cause of the problem. While the Library is also not a silver bullet, it does reach closer to the root cause of achieving a more lasting and holistic safety for our community.
–Michael Yegerlehner
by Guest Writer | Sep 14, 2024 | Elections
In November 2023, Republican U.S.Senate candidate Tim Sheehy made disparaging and racist comments about Native Americans. His statements are not only offensive but perpetuate a harmful stereotype that I have encountered throughout my life. Native Americans comprise 6.6% of Montanans, likely higher due to significant undercounting. Now, we have a Senate candidate adding to the discrimination by making such hurtful comments about this minority group.
As an enrolled member of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, I find Sheehy’s remarks inaccurate and deeply hurtful. They reflect a long history of racial stereotypes that justify ongoing discrimination and neglect. His comments ignore the historical context of colonization and forced assimilation that have led to the current struggles faced by many Native Americans. There is no acknowledgment of the generational trauma that these systemic issues have created.
Does Mr. Sheehy believe that substance use problems are unique to Native Americans? Does he recognize that these issues are linked to systemic inequalities that contribute to health disparities? His statements suggest a troubling lack of understanding of these fundamental issues. Substance use problems are not confined by race or ethnicity; they are public health concerns that affect people universally. Mr. Sheehy’s comments reflect a profound ignorance of the systemic factors exacerbating these problems.
Instead of disparagingly labeling Native Americans as “drunk Indians at 8:00 am,” Mr. Sheehy should find out what many of us are doing at that time. He can find me training for the New York City Marathon or working.
Mr. Sheehy must take responsibility for his words. Public figures must recognize the impact of their statements and understand that their words have real power. I urge Mr. Sheehy to educate himself about historical trauma and Native cultures. Such knowledge would enrich his perspective and contribute to a more respectful and informed discourse.
-Barbara Bessette
by Guest Writer | Aug 13, 2024 | Guest Articles
By Jim Edwards
We’re past the time to “debate” climate change, it’s real – and it’s a problem. We need Congress focused on bi-partisan solutions for addressing it.
We need to be solving it so we can live in a stable climate and not enduring the climate-driven extreme weather events – wildfires, droughts, heatwaves, and the resulting low flows and warming water temps in our rivers and reservoirs. 2023 was the hottest year since records have been kept and 2024 is likely to beat it. Besides rising global temperatures, we’re seeing all sorts of other negative impacts, like more frequent and extreme droughts, floods, and severe, dangerous storms.
However, since the “debate” seems to keep cropping up, I’d like to remind my fellow Montanans that there is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community on these fundamental points regarding human-induced climate change:
- Earth’s global average temperature is increasing;
- Due to our burning of fossil fuels, human emissions of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), are the main cause of the warming;
- International, independently derived research results ALL pointing towards the same finding provide a high degree of confidence that climate scientists are on the right track. The scientific community continues to add new findings and knows that many details about climate interactions aren’t fully understood and require significant, additional, continued research.
Climate defines the range in temperature and precipitation patterns making up our weather. Since the 1800s, the climate has warmed. Since World War II, the dominant contributor has been the burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas. All contain carbon. When burned, they emit potent gases, mostly CO2, into the atmosphere. These emissions act like a down blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and thus raising temperatures, and creating droughts. As more water evaporates into the atmosphere, it provides fuel for storms and more intense rainfall.
Nearly 100 percent of climate scientists are now convinced, based on the evidence, that human-caused global warming is happening. Still, the general public perceives there is significant “debate” among scientists – why?
A campaign of obfuscation regarding climate change science has been underway since the late 1980s, funded in large part by the fossil fuels industry (quite similar to what the tobacco industry did 30 years earlier regarding the correlation of tobacco use and cancer prevalence).
In the early 1990s, the Western Fuels Association (with funding from Exxon and others), conducted a massive PR campaign to “reposition global warming as a theory (not fact)”, using dissenting scientists (industry funded), to create the impression of ongoing scientific debate.
My brother spent 40 years as an engineer working in the coal side of ExxonMobil (Exxon is now 100% divested of its coal portfolio). He’s helped educate me to the fact that for the first 30 years of his career, Exxon was invested in climate change denial; within the past 15 years, Exxon has pivoted and is now fully on board with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Scientists do not disagree about whether climate change is human-caused. There are only a very few, and even fewer with scientific backgrounds relevant to climate science, who promote “debate”. Many individuals who pose as “experts” in media sources are not scientists at all, or else have no real background in actual climate science.
People from all walks of life and all political stripes care about climate change and want to see the problem fixed as soon as possible.
To leave a healthy, stable world for future generations, we need to act now, get creative, and work energetically together. For solutions, please see https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Jim Edwards
Member of the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL)
Jim founded Mountain West Benefits (MWB) consultancy in 2003. MWB provided health insurance advisory services and was Montana’s largest benefit consultancy firm, advising large employer, association and union sponsored plans covering over 35,000 individuals.
In 2012 Jim and his partner, Richard Miltenberger, founded the Montana Health Co-op (now Mountain Health Co-op). Jim sold MWB to the Leavitt Group in 2015 and retired in 2017. Jim and his wife Sheila have four ordinary adult children and three brilliant grandchildren.
