Montana will spend $750,000 to avoid making it easier for Democrats to vote

Zack Ford Editor, Think Progress LGBT

Considering that Montana ranks 48th in the country for population density with only 6.5 people per square mile, it’s no surprise that allowing voters to simply cast ballots through the mail would save the state up to $750,000.

Nonetheless, this week, Montana House Speaker Austin Knudsen (R) put the final nail in the coffin of a bill that would have made the state’s upcoming special election all mail-in votes — seemingly to avoid the reality that when barriers to voting are removed, Democrats cast more ballots.

The special election on May 25 will determine who will succeed former Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT), whom President Trump tapped to serve as Secretary of the Interior. It was actually a Republican state senator, Steve Fitzpatrick, who introduced a bill that would have made it a mail-only election, calling it a “fiscally responsible thing to do.” The bill, however, turned into a partisan ping-pong match that ended with Knudsen’s kill-shot.

Fitzpatrick’s bill had actually passed the Republican-controlled Senate, but not before Montana Republican Chairman Rep. Jeff Essmann distributed an “emergency report” blatantly admitting his concern that the change would advantage Democrats. “All mail ballots give the Democrats an inherent advantage in close elections,” he wrote, “due to their ability to organize large numbers of unpaid college students and members of public employee unions to gather ballots by going door to door.” In other words, Republicans can only win if it’s harder for more people to vote.

Fitzpatrick was able to quell initial concern by pointing out that a majority of Montanans already vote by mail, and the legislation passed the Senate. But then the back-and-forth began.

House Democrats tried to force a vote in late March, because if the measure passed, there needed to be enough time to print and mail all the ballots. A party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee tabled the bill. Rep. Geraldine Custer, a Republican who supported the measure, tried to salvage it from committee with a floor vote, but she fell nine votes short of the 60-vote supermajority necessary to bypass the committee.

Then Gov. Steve Bullock (D) tried to save the bill with his own maneuver, an “amendatory veto,” which essentially added the language back through a separate election bill, putting it back before both chambers for consideration.

The legislature is entering its last week, and Knudsen refuses to schedule a vote. As Speaker, he has the authority to determine what gets considered and what doesn’t. Even though Custer’s strategy seemed to show 51 representatives willing to approve the measure, it would require another 60-vote supermajority to override Knudsen’s decision not to schedule a vote, which seems unlikely. The proposal is effectively dead.

News of the bill’s demise comes as another special election in Georgia heads to a runoff. Democrat Jon Ossoff won 48.1 percent of the vote Tuesday, falling just short of the 50 percent necessary to beat several Republican contenders.

Bullock decried Knudsen for “playing procedural games to prevent this (bill) from reaching the House floor,” accusing him of “spending more taxpayer money to get fewer people to vote.” A spokeswoman for Knudsen simply said that he felt it was “bad policy.”

***

Reposted from Think Progress.

Zack Ford is the editor of ThinkProgress LGBT at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, hailing from the small town of Newport, PA. Prior to joining ThinkProgress, Zack blogged for two years at ZackFordBlogs.com with occasional cross-posts at Pam’s House Blend. He also co-hosts a popular LGBT-issues podcast called Queer and Queerer with activist and performance artist Peterson Toscano. A graduate of Ithaca College (B.M. Music Education) and Iowa State University (M.Ed. Higher Education), Zack is an accomplished pianist with a passion for social justice education. Follow him on Twitter at @ZackFord.

Posted In: Allied Approaches

Union Matters

An Invitation to Sunny Miami. What Could Be Bad?

Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati Editor, Too Much online magazine

If a billionaire “invites” you somewhere, you’d better go. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences. This past May, hedge fund kingpin Carl Icahn announced in a letter to his New York-based staff of about 50 that he would be moving his business operations to Florida. But the 83-year-old Icahn assured his staffers they had no reason to worry: “My employees have always been very important to the company, so I’d like to invite you all to join me in Miami.” Those who go south, his letter added, would get a $50,000 relocation benefit “once you have established your permanent residence in Florida.” Those who stay put, the letter continued, can file for state unemployment benefits, a $450 weekly maximum that “you can receive for a total of 26 weeks.” What about severance from Icahn Enterprises? The New York Post reported last week that the two dozen employees who have chosen not to uproot their families and follow Icahn to Florida “will be let go without any severance” when the billionaire shutters his New York offices this coming March. Bloomberg currently puts Carl Icahn’s net worth at $20.5 billion.

***

More ...

Health Care Should Not Be A Bargaining Weapon

Health Care Should Not Be A Bargaining Weapon