logo
In Montana, a Rare Sight: Republicans and Democrats Voting Together

In Montana, a Rare Sight: Republicans and Democrats Voting Together

New York Times03-05-2025
In the waning days of a tumultuous legislative session in Montana's Capitol, Carl Glimm, a state senator and a member of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, watched with exasperation as yet another Democratic-backed bill zoomed toward passage.
'Are we not embarrassed?' Mr. Glimm asked from the Senate floor in Helena. 'This thing's a big red 'No,' but I'll tell you what — it's going to be 23-27,' he added, predicting his own defeat. 'Because, like we've said before, the cake is baked.'
In deep-red Montana, Republicans have controlled both houses of the Legislature since 2011, and the governor's office since 2021. They ousted the last remaining Democratic statewide official, former Senator Jon Tester, in November.
Which has made it all the more aggravating for conservative lawmakers to find themselves effectively in the minority this year.
After an intraparty dispute in January, nine Republican state senators began breaking with their caucus on key votes, siding with the 18 Democrats in the 50-person chamber. The result: a 27-person majority that has all but locked Republican leaders out of power.
Some or all of the Nine, as the Republican defectors are known, have voted with Democrats to reauthorize a Medicaid expansion, establish a child tax credit, increase access to maternal health care and pass the state budget. They have helped block bills that would have weakened labor unions, made state judicial elections more partisan and established an unlimited hunting season on wolves.
On Wednesday, the session's final day, they again broke with their party, pushing through a property tax cut to assist residents struggling with soaring home values.
The unusual alliance shows that for all the seeming unanimity in the MAGA movement, Republicans can still clash over policy objectives and the wielding of power. And in an era when advancing legislation often loses out to mocking the opposing party, it shows that some on the right remain more interested in getting things done.
But it could prove something of a blip: a reversion to bygone reflexes toward compromise belying Montana's steady drift to the right.
Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said politicians elsewhere could learn from the Nine.
'What they've done is said, 'I'm going to vote with the people I represent back home — and that's not what the party leadership is telling us,'' Mr. Schweitzer said.
'We'll haul Congress out here to see how it's done in Montana,' he joked, adding that he would 'put in the first $50' for bus fare.
Policy over party
The Nine argued that they were simply prioritizing smart policy over ideological conformity — reauthorizing the Medicaid expansion would keep open rural hospitals in their districts, for instance — and supporting the agenda pushed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, also a Republican.
But as President Trump exerts near-total control over the Republican Party, and the country seems bitterly divided along partisan lines more than ever, the G.O.P. schism in Montana has attracted outsize attention.
As the session progressed, other Montana Republicans ramped up a pressure campaign against the defectors, posting their photos on social media, demanding that they quit bucking party leadership and giving them nicknames like the 'Nasty Nine.' In March, Republicans tried to expel one of the heretics, Jason Ellsworth, from the Legislature over alleged ethical violations; a majority of Democrats helped block the attempt.
The Montana Republican Party even censured the Nine, saying they would no longer be considered Republicans or receive funding from the state party because of 'the damage they have exacted on the Montana Senate.'
The Nine remained upbeat. Days before the legislative session ended, seven of them sat for an interview in the State Capitol, describing praise from voters, swapping stories of admonishment by local Republican groups and declaring that such criticism had only strengthened their resolve.
'I always looked at politics when I was younger and you see people work across the aisle,' said Gayle Lammers, a first-term senator. 'I know we're in this new age where division is so hardcore, but why can't we get back to where any reasonable legislation is reasonable legislation? If it's good for Montana, if it's good for your district, why not consider it?'
Even though they have voted with Democrats, the senators say they remain conservative Republicans and strong supporters of Mr. Trump. All of them voted for a bill restricting transgender people's use of public bathrooms, and most of them sided with their Republican colleagues on several anti-abortion bills. Josh Kassmier, who emerged as a leader of the Nine, noted that he had sponsored a bill cutting the income tax, a move backed by Donald Trump Jr.
Since Mr. Gianforte took office in 2021, Mr. Kassmier said, 'we've cut the budget, we've made government more efficient — that's all Trump politics, right?' He added: 'We're voting on the policy. It's not a deal we've made with the Dems.'
One of the Nine, Wendy McKamey, keeps at her desk a stack of notes from Montanans thanking the group for its courage. 'Give 'Em Hell,' the front of one card reads, above an image of a cowgirl astride a galloping horse.
'They help me own my vote,' Ms. McKamey said. 'I will not offend my conscience.'
Though the Legislature's political lines seemed blurred, some lawmakers and analysts suggested the real rift was between those who wanted to make policy and those who sought to obstruct it.
'It's about who is more interested in governing, really,' said Jessi Bennion, a political science professor at Montana State University. Montana's right wing, she said, seemed less interested in conservative fiscal policy than in introducing controversial bills on social issues that jammed up the legislative process.
That put hard-liners on a collision course with Mr. Gianforte, who did not endorse Matt Regier, the right-wing Senate president, last year but did endorse a group of relative moderates. The Freedom Caucus issued a rebuttal to Mr. Gianforte's State of the State address in January, suggesting that Montana should spend less money than the governor desired and opposing some of his priorities, like Medicaid expansion.
Mr. Gianforte has avoided speaking directly about the Nine, and a spokesman for the governor declined to comment. But he has seemed pleased to have achieved many of his goals.
Intense blowback
Despite the recent rightward drift, Big Sky Country has long been proud of its independent streak and small-town values. Montana has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate only once since 1964 — Bill Clinton in 1992 — but it had Democratic governors and senators for decades.
In previous legislative sessions, which occur every two years, a loose coalition of Republicans called the Solutions Caucus worked with Democrats to pass bills. But that was easier for Republicans to swallow when a Democratic governor made it necessary to compromise.
What stood out about this year's bipartisanship was the animosity it produced.
The conflict started the first week of the legislative session, when the Nine were assigned to what they say was a sham committee that would have sidelined them from the legislative process — part of an effort, they argued, to make it easier for Mr. Regier and his allies to consolidate power.
The senators pushed back, agreeing with Democrats on alternate committee assignments. From there, they said, the Democrats were only too happy to work with the Nine on some bills.
In an interview, Mr. Regier called the bipartisan alliance a 'gut punch.' He said none of the Nine had raised concerns about committee assignments when Republicans met before the session, and suggested the unhappiness was a 'talking point' that provided 'cover for them to side with Democrats.' Efforts to win them back, he said, had been rebuffed.
'We tried and tried,' Mr. Regier said. 'It was obvious to see there was some sort of handshake, friendship, collaboration with the Democrats.'
Mr. Regier denied that right-wing Republicans were obstructionist and sounded dumbfounded by the Nine's role in locking them out of the legislative process. 'You're scratching your head being like, 'Are you even on our team anymore?'' he said.
He also argued that the unlikely alliance was out of step with the electorate.
'Voters want more and more conservatism here in Montana,' Mr. Regier said, suggesting the episode amounted to 'growing pains in becoming more conservative.'
Democrats also felt heat for their role in the coalition — from the left. Bill Lombardi, a former top aide to Mr. Tester, faulted the Democratic senators for voting with Republicans on issues like maintaining a tax on Social Security.
'While working together is good, you can't give away Democratic principles,' Mr. Lombardi said. 'Republicans have cemented their position in Montana, and some legislative Democrats think they must hew to the moderate Republican line to get anything.'
But the frustration appears more strongly felt on the right.
Theresa Manzella, a founder of the Freedom Caucus, said right-wing state senators had tried hard to get the Nine to back down but eventually tired of the fight.
'We've resigned ourselves to life in the circus,' she said. 'And, unfortunately, it is our circus, and these are our clowns.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Long before calls to disband ICE, there was a movement to end the INS
Long before calls to disband ICE, there was a movement to end the INS

San Francisco Chronicle​

time25 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Long before calls to disband ICE, there was a movement to end the INS

On May 23, 1980, around 1,000 people, representing some 200 organizations from every border state, Colorado, Chicago and nearby Tijuana, assembled in San Diego for the National Chicano Immigration Conference by the Committee on Chicano Rights (CCR), a local grassroots activist group advocating for its community's self-determination. The historic meeting was a culmination of years of collective rage against increasing violence emanating from the U.S. Border Patrol, police and vigilantes against Mexican migrants. Attendees determined that the current immigration system, built by Republicans and Democrats, could not be reformed, noting that the very category of 'illegal alien' was invented to exploit Mexican immigrants' labor. And so, they put forward a call for the 'abolishment of the INS/border patrol,' rejecting militarization as a solution to the U.S. immigration issue. 'Abolishment' was not a cynical call to start over. It was a means to imagine a more democratic border policy from the perspective of those most affected by it and end a system that took advantage of virtually rightless laborers. That framework continues to guide social movements seeking the abolition of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) today. While people had always moved between the U.S.-Mexico border, migration increased exponentially after the U.S. government, facing a labor shortage in World War II, established the Bracero Program, which brought millions of Mexican contract workers to the U.S. After the program's termination in 1964, U.S. employers — now dependent on cheap, imported labor — continued recruiting Mexican migrant workers at the same pace. They did so despite a 40,000-person cap imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This created a growing population of vulnerable, undocumented workers in the 1960s and '70s who increasingly faced brutal apprehensions. The aggression was especially evident in the San Diego-Tijuana region, where migrants reported experiencing police brutality, family separation through deportation, wage theft and other types of abuse. Chicano activists mobilized resistance. They documented reports of heinous strip-searches by border agents from hundreds of women of Mexican origin, along with other accounts of Border Patrol violence, and angrily wrote to government officials. In 1972, they succeeded in obtaining a congressional hearing that brought widespread attention to the issue of Border Patrol violence, but little structural change. As apprehensions surpassed 1 million and continued climbing during President Jimmy Carter's administration, the CCR was among the Chicano Movement activist confronting the police violence, media scapegoating, and deportations targeting their communities. Despite their efforts, elected officials continued to make concessions to employers who hired undocumented migrants and increase border policing. By the time the CCR convened the 1980 conference, the continued escalation of violence had convinced activists: abolishment, not reform, was the only way forward. There, in San Diego's St. Rita Catholic Church, under banners of Cuban revolutionary hero Ernesto 'Che' Guevara and Mexican Revolution leader Emiliano Zapata and the flags of Mexico, the U.S., and the United Farm Workers, conference attendees broke out into workshops to come up with solutions to immigration policy problems. The Chicano/Mexicano Perspective Workshop, notably, considered an argument La Raza Unida Party had introduced as early as 1972 — that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the 1848 U.S.-Mexico War and granted U.S. citizenship to Mexicans living on land captured by the U.S., should also apply for 'easy entry of Mejicanos into the U.S. at any time.' This perspective defied the notion that Mexican-origin people were foreigners, positing that in fact they held legal rights to the territory. Activists also extended this anti-imperialist analysis to call for 'abolishing all quotas on immigration from countries where the USA has political, economic and military domination.' The following year, attendees reconvened at the 1981 National Chicano Immigration Tribunal, where migrants and advocates testified to further incidents of violence, including the deaths of two children denied access to crossing the border. CCR sent these accounts, as well as the resolutions that had come out of the 1980 conference, to the presidents of the U.S. and Mexico, Ronald Reagan and Jose López Portillo. This laid the groundwork for the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which created a pathway to citizenship protection for 3 million. However, the IRCA ignored Chicano abolitionists' fundamental call for change. Instead, it further militarized the border by allocating resources for more police, military equipment and infrastructure. In 2025, immigration policy in the U.S. remains compromised by bipartisan interests that rely on immigrant labor but perceive immigrants themselves as a threat. But CCR's conference and tribunal show there is another way forward. And their proclamation 45 years ago — to reject the exploitation and racial violence of U.S. immigration system and to create something better led by those most impacted by the policy — continues to be advanced by advocates, organizers and community members who push for fundamental change today. It's no coincidence that the 1,000-page tribunal document activists sent to Reagan and López Portillo began with the words of the formerly enslaved leader, Frederick Douglass. 'Power concedes nothing without a demand,' it noted. 'The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.'

Most Democrats vote for failed resolutions to block arms sales to Israel
Most Democrats vote for failed resolutions to block arms sales to Israel

Washington Post

time44 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Most Democrats vote for failed resolutions to block arms sales to Israel

More than half of Senate Democrats voted for two resolutions Wednesday night to block weapons sales to Israel, highlighting the party's growing frustration with Israel's handling of the war in Gaza nearly two years after Hamas's attack on Israel. The Senate rejected both resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). The first, which would block the sale of tens of thousands of assault rifles, failed 70-27. The second, which would block the sale of $675.7 million of bombs and other materiel to Israel, failed 73-24.

Texas Democrats slam GOP redistricting plan as "grossly unfair" and "deeply undemocratic"
Texas Democrats slam GOP redistricting plan as "grossly unfair" and "deeply undemocratic"

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Texas Democrats slam GOP redistricting plan as "grossly unfair" and "deeply undemocratic"

Top Texas Democrats are sounding the alarm over a GOP plan to redraw Texas' congressional maps, warning in interviews with CBS News it would dramatically dilute minority representation in the Lone Star State and set off a nationwide ripple effect. Republican state lawmakers unveiled a draft congressional map on Wednesday that would turn five U.S. House districts currently held by Democrats into GOP-leaning seats — an idea blessed by President Trump as Republicans angle to hold onto their narrow congressional majority in next year's midterms. One Democratic member of Congress whose district could be impacted called the proposed map "grossly unfair," arguing Black and Latino communities are being "scrambled" and intentionally fractured for political gain. "They've already gerrymandered the map — and now they're trying to make it 30 to 8 in favor of Republicans," the lawmaker told CBS News, referencing the state's congressional delegation. "This is grossly unfair and starts a dangerous domino effect. If Texas lights the fire, it will spread to other states like California and New York. It's going to be a mess across the country." The Democratic representative also argued that Texas Republicans are banking on maintaining the historic margins they saw among Hispanic voters in November's election, but warned that recent polling shows a softening in GOP support among Latino voters — particularly in the wake of backlash over the Trump administration's deportation policies. Those voters "may not be there," the lawmaker said, cautioning the strategy could backfire and jeopardize Republican gains. Another top Democrat who has previously run statewide in Texas echoed the concern, calling the proposal "deeply undemocratic." "We're seeing losses of representation for people of color in Texas," the Democrat said. "Five of the affected districts are Latino-majority seats. They're not just stacking the deck — they're doing it without any expectation of being held accountable. But they will be held accountable." New congressional map could expand GOP's House edge Mr. Trump has publicly encouraged Texas Republicans to reshape the state's congressional districts, predicting to reporters earlier this month a "simple redrawing" could net five extra seats for his party. The GOP currently controls 25 of Texas' 38 House districts, which were last redrawn after the 2020 Census. House Republicans are defending a razor-thin seven-seat majority in next year's congressional elections — a challenging task since the party that controls the White House almost always loses upwards of a dozen seats in the midterms. Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called the state legislature into a special session, and on Wednesday, lawmakers released an early draft map — though changes could be made. It will need to pass the GOP-controlled state House and Senate. The map would improve the GOP's edge by tilting two Democratic seats in the Rio Grande Valley to the right, making a pair of districts in the Dallas and Houston area redder and merging two Democratic seats near Austin into one. For example, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar — who already represents a district won by Mr. Trump in 2024 — would lose parts of the San Antonio suburbs under the new map. And the Dallas-area district held by Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson would be redrawn to stretch more than 100 miles from Dallas County to deep-red parts of rural North Texas. Texas Republicans have pledged to ensure the redistricting plans are constitutional. Abbott has argued the maps need to be redrawn due to "constitutional concerns" raised by the Justice Department. CBS News has reached out to the Texas GOP for comment. But Democrats have blasted the map, which Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin called a "blatant gerrymander" and a "likely violation of the Voting Rights Act." Rep. Greg Casar — whose Austin-area district would be merged with that of fellow Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett — called the move "illegal voter suppression of Black and Latino Central Texans." The governors of some Democratic states, including California and New York, have floated launching their own mid-decade redistricting processes, with an eye to creating more blue seats. But those plans could require constitutional amendments since, unlike Texas, those two states have put independent commissions in charge of redistricting. Johnson — whose Texas district is set to be redrawn — says other states should redraw their maps in response. "This is an all-out war," she told CBS News senior White House correspondent Ed O'Keefe. "I am for fair and independent redistricting across the country, so long as we all do it. But if we're going to do partisan gerrymandering, then game on, we all should." Meanwhile, some experts have suggested Texas' plan to create five extra GOP-leaning districts could make some of those newfound red seats more competitive, by distributing Republican voters across more districts. The state has also undergone significant demographic changes in recent elections. The fast-growing Dallas and Houston suburbs have shifted toward Democrats, but the once reliably blue Rio Grande Valley has become redder with more Hispanic voters supporting Republican candidates. Those shifts could complicate efforts to rearrange the congressional map. Watch: Hawaii Gov. Josh Green gives update on tsunami warning Forensics expert analysis of Jeffrey Epstein jail video contradicts government's claims Russia reacts to Trump's new deadline on Ukraine ceasefire

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store