Uncategorized Archives - Page 7 of 19 - The Gentleman at Large

And we’re back! Last week we had a quick review of the big money races for the Senate and our sole House seat, and reviewed the palmares of our State Supreme Court incumbents. We also identified the perfect contest to judge voter ignorance: the Clerk of the Supreme Court, wherein the unimpeachably qualified candidate has a (D) next to his name, and the man with an (R) next to his name is laughably out of his depth. Who will win – reason and research, or blind partisan fandom? We’ll find out in two short weeks!

This week we’ll get the down low on the down ballot options this year. How did Judge Deschamps get his nickname on the ballot? Why does Big Tobacco hate I-185? Who is the least scummy candidate for Sheriff? Read on and let’s find out!

Open Space Bond and Stewardship Levy

This is the last thing on the ballot this year, so it seems fair to plug it in first here. This is a big one in the city and county here, and essential to continue protecting and stewarding the places we love. The Open Space Bond replenishes a pot of money last approved in 2006, and which has been leveraged 4x for conservation, recreation, and agricultural land projects in Missoula County. We need this one.

We also need the stewardship levy that is presented as a second option, to ensure that as federal and local land management budgets are slashed we can continue to care for these landscapes in a way that we all deserve.

For District Court Judge District 4, Dept 1

– Yes

– No

Shall we retain or jettison Leslie Halligan? And where the hell is District 4, Dept 1? Is this the Hunger Games? Judge Halligan presides over cases brought in Missoula and Lake Counties, so if you find yourself called to explain you actions anywhere between Lolo and Polson this affects you. Judge Halligan has served in this capacity for a few years, and I don’t see any instances of anything all that controversial. She has specialized in ensuring satisfactory legal representation for marginalized demographics, and has served in leadership roles at Missoula Aging Services and CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates for children). So unless you’re looking at a second trial regarding Shaken Baby Syndrome, she’s probably a fair bet.

For District Court Judge District 4, Dept 2

– Yes

– No

Shall we retain or jettison Robert “Dusty” Deschamps? That’s a good question. Judge Deschamps is the only judge on this ballot with Google reviews, and they’re not that good. Now, it would be one thing if they all said, “this guy put me away for murder goldarnit,” or something, but that’s not really it. Two of them refer to a soft probation sentence for a molestation conviction, one refers to a labored jury selection process, and one just refers to him as “crooked.” That last one is probably a convict. More recently, Judge Deschamps went to bat for a city ordinance that requires background checks for all gun sales within city limits (essentially closing the infamous “gun show loophole”), and asked the state legislature to get its shit together on bounty hunter regulation “before someone gets hurt,” and before reluctantly dismissing assault charges because it turns out that in Montana vigilante posses are still a legal thing. Does that help? I don’t know, but I hope so.

For District Court Judge District 4, Dept 3

– Yes

– No

Shall we retain or jettison John W Larson? In my experience, the easiest thing to learn about Judge Larson is that he has two corgis. I’m not sure that that’s a selling point for a magistrate. Other than that, he doesn’t seem all that controversial, and local attorneys interviewed for this piece suggested that he’s more or less coasting at this point in his career. “I don’t think he’s ever read past the first three sentences of a single brief of mine,” quoth one. So what’s more important to you? Maintaining some institutional knowledge and experience on the bench? Or bringing in someone with enthusiasm for law and a passion for the work? Maybe that will help inform your vote.

For State Representative District 89

– David Doc Moore (R)

– Katie Sullivan (D)

This is a good one. Enthusiasts of the Montana State Legislature will certainly recall David Moore’s 2015 attempt to prohibit speedos and yoga pants in public as indecent exposure, but beyond that he’s a pretty run-of-the-mill old school republican. He doesn’t have a campaign website, but in a 2014 interview with the Missoulian he toted the old tropes of cutting government spending, and levied legitimate concerns with Medicaid expansion legislation as written. He hinted a willingness to transfer federal lands to state ownership, and offered pretty lame excuses for why opportunities for voter registration should be curtailed. Somehow, though, he doesn’t have a problem with same-sex marriage and is actually endorsed by Planned Parenthood, believing that safe and affordable women’s health decisions should be between them and their doctors.

On the other hand, Katie Sullivan indicates enthusiasm for expanding Medicaid and improving transparency in hospital and drug pricing, as well as rural access to medical facilities. She is a supporter of public lands access (although I don’t get the impression from her campaign website that she understands how loaded that statement is), and is a champion for growing economic prosperity by drawing technology business with improved infrastructure and high quality of life for employees.

From there, things get a little bit more . . . curated. The following elected positions each only have one person on the ballot: County Commissioner District 3, Clerk and Recorder/Treasurer, Sheriff/Coroner, County Attorney/Public Administrator, County Superintendent of Schools, and County Auditor. Vote on ’em or don’t, we’re stuck with ’em.

And you may be thinking now, “wait, isn’t the election for Sheriff actually really heated? You know, between Josh Clark and TJ McDermott? And it’s a pretty controversial and publicly ugly campaign that goes back multiple election cycles?” Yes. Yes it is. But at the end of the day those guys are both such scumbags, and the department so inundated with cronyism and corruption that I honestly don’t believe that these candidates are functionally different. Feel free not to vote on either one.

For Justice of the Peace Department 1

– Marie A Andersen (non-partisan)

– Alex Beal (non-partisan)

So here’s one: if a Justice of the Peace requires staff to walk her dog, keeps “mistakes sheets” on staff, and can’t keep staff around for more than a few weeks at a time, you may wonder if that Justice can run a very tight ship, or really serve the public at all. An independent auditor recently published a pretty gnarly review of Marie Andersen’s outfit, and the other Justice wholeheartedly endorsed the other guy. That’s got to hurt.

For Justice of the Peace Department 2

– Yes

– No

Shall we retain or jettison Landee N Holloway? On the one hand, you may think that her background as a parole officer and commitment to rehabilitation and accountability might make her a great person to preside over relatively minor infractions. But then on the other hand, she uses two spaces after a period. This one is going to take some soul searching.

Now, the good stuff. The initiatives. The referenda. Direct democracy in action. Cut out the middleman, cast off the lobbyists. It’s time that we, the voters, decide on legislation. We’ve got some good ones, and these are probably the most important lines on the ballot. So let’s dig in and see what we can learn.

Legislative Referendum No. 124

This is the 6-mill levy to continue providing public financial support to public colleges and universities. Basically, this is a question of whether the public should pay for public universities, and arguments for/against follow the script you’ve heard before. Shall we invest in education? Or is big government run amok? This one is not complicated, and you probably know where you stand.

Legislative Referendum No. 129

This one is a little bit trickier. This referendum would make it illegal for a stranger to collect your ballot and bring it to the polling place. There are exceptions for friends, family, postal workers and caregivers, and at face value it seems like a good natured effort to maintain accountability in the voting process. The legislation is based on a story of bogeymen collecting ballots from the elderly after asking them for whom they voted, with the implication that those ballots may not have been delivered if the “wrong” candidate was selected. This was never verified, no evidence of ballot tampering was ever presented, and it doesn’t really make all that much sense.

Any effort to complicate or curtail opportunities to vote should be approached with extreme skepticism, and should grow from actual concerns. This reeks of voter suppression in the works and I won’t have it!

Initiative No. 185

This one is easy to get on board with because Big Tobacco hates it so much. And why shouldn’t they? Initiative 185 proposes that we further increase taxes on tobacco products to pay for Medicaid expansion and other healthcare services. And since a majority of people don’t smoke, well, then shit it’s probably going to pass, right? And really, if we look at smokers as one of the most likely demographics to require disproportionately high healthcare costs later in life, then it’s probably totally fair.

But then when we look at the fact that smoking is most common in poor communities, and that most smokers make less than $36k per year, this looks a lot like a regressive tax to increase the burden on the poorest Americans. If Medicaid expansion is essential, and healthcare is a human right, then shouldn’t we find a more progressive way to pay for it?

On the other hand, I-185 eliminates the sunset clause on Medicaid expansion. This guarantees that Montana’s poorest people will retain access to healthcare, but eliminates the ability to increase its funding without new legislation.

So really, the question here is whether you are more comfortable taxing the poor to pay for something we should all be on the hook for, or leaving the future of public health to our whackadoodle state legislature. I’m actually pretty torn.

Initiative No. 186

Should mining companies be forced to demonstrate that their work won’t result in another Berkeley Pit situation? You know, where the contamination is so bad that it requires constant, perpetual treatment of wastewater to avert an ecological disaster? Perpetual. Think about that. Forever. This is a no brainer.

So there you have it! A quick and dirty guide to the ballot you’ll find in Missoula this November (or in your mailbox already). The big thing now is that you actually have to vote. Really. You can’t text it in, and specifically with some of these initiatives, the margins could be in the hundreds of votes. So yeah, you really do make a difference. Get your shit together. Do the thing.