Montana Senate votes to punish Ellsworth, revokes lifetime floor privileges
As the Senate chamber emptied on Tuesday afternoon, a sergeant-at-arms cleared off the desk of Sen. Jason Ellsworth.
The Montana Senate voted 44-6 to punish the Hamilton Republican, for his failure to disclose a conflict of interest in procuring a contract for a close friend, and for a 'pattern of abuse.'
In making the motion, Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, said the punishment was for more than just the conflict of interest which was the focus of a Senate Ethics Committee. He said it encompassed years of wrongdoings by Ellsworth, including running afoul of the Federal Trade Commission more than a decade ago, two altercations with law enforcement, and the work done late last year to a $170,100 contract that skirted procurement rules.
'I think this is appropriate,' McGillvray told his colleagues on the floor. 'These incidents were very, very serious and the Senate should respond accordingly.'
Ellsworth, who apologized for only an appearance of impropriety, voted remotely against his own censure. He did not respond to texts or phone calls about his censure.
Last week, the Senate voted twice on motions to expel Ellsworth, but couldn't get to the 2/3 majority (34 votes) needed to punish or expel a member, as a majority of Democrats voted against expulsion. Another expulsion vote taken before the censure also failed.
Negotiations between McGillvray and Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, and Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, took place over the last week, up until Tuesday when McGillvray said he crafted the final language that went 'right up to' the line of expulsion.
The censure includes the following:
Removal from Senate standing committees
No assignment to interim committees
No verbal contact with executive branch directors or legislative staff, unless Ellsworth is first contacted by them.
Revocation of access to legislator or legislative services office space
Revocation of floor privileges for life
For the remainder of the session, all Ellsworth can do in an official capacity is vote, remotely, on second and third readings of bills, and on motions made on the floor. Former legislators are allowed floor access after they serve, but Ellsworth will not be allowed to enter the Senate chamber again.
Regier told reporters after the vote that he remained disappointed that the chamber was unable to muster the votes to expel Ellsworth, casting blame on the minority caucus.
'This is everything that the public of Montana does not like about politicians, and we didn't expel that from the system,' Regier said. 'I'm still for (expulsion), still disappointed that the Democrat party didn't stand up and get rid of corruption. But I am glad, as a conciliatory action, that action was taken and there was repercussions.'
McGillvray added he felt the Democrats likely prevented the expulsion of Ellsworth to secure a vote on legislation.
'Democrats don't protect corrupt Republicans out of principle,' he said.
Six members voted against the censure, including two Democrats — Sen. Ellie Boldman and Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy. Two Great Falls Republicans Sens. Jeremy Trebas and Daniel Emrich had voted for expulsion but not for the censure, and Wendy McKamey, also of Great Falls, voted against the censure.
Both Democrats spoke on the floor about their reasons for resisting the motion. Windy Boy said he thought there should be a progressive warning system before a punishment was enacted, while Boldman said she still doubted the fairness of the entire process and felt that revoking floor privileges for life went too far.
'The political witch hunt needs to stop,' she said.
Many members of the Republican majority, however, still favored expulsion.
Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, who led the Senate Ethics Committee, made a substitute motion to expel Ellsworth, which failed on a tie vote.
'I don't see what has changed in the last week that would change my mind that expulsion is the most appropriate punishment,' he said. 'I feel the infractions of the Senator from Senate District 43 has made over the course of his service in the Senate makes him unsuitable for office.'
Sen. Chris Pope, a Bozeman Democrat, also served on the Ethics Committee and again made his case that censure was the best route and would be a 'very black mark' on Ellsworth.
'I think there's a sense in this body that our colleague has really fallen and that there needs to be consequences,' Pope said. 'We also, as a body, I think, have been interested in being judicious and being fair, but being very explicit as to what the punishment and what the long term need is here for this body to express itself, and its commitment to transparency and integrity and decorum.'
Flowers said he felt the censure was fair, even though it went further than what his party had initially proposed — including the revocation of floor privileges and speaking to legislative staff — and for the most part his caucus had been happy with where things ended up.
'I applaud the Ethics Committee for being as efficient as possible with that effort and fair, but it did take a lot of time and energy, and I think just brought a kind of a little bit of a pall on our proceedings in here,' Flowers said. 'I think all of us are ready and happy to be moving on.'
Ellsworth's office had yet to be emptied as of Tuesday afternoon.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Money Moves the Middle Class Should Make After the Passing of Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' finally cleared the House and the Senate and was signed by the president on July 4. The bill has several policies that could impact the middle class. Making some money moves and preparing for the new changes can help you save money and grow your portfolio. Read Next: Check Out: Here are some of the top money moves the middle class should make. Also see how much the definition of middle class has changed in every state. Capitalize on Clean Energy Credits Now The bill is cycling out of energy credits, which affect electric vehicles, solar panels and other clean energy sources. Chad Gammon, CFP, owner of Custom Fit Financial, suggested making clean energy purchases before the deadline if you've been holding out. 'If you are considering any upgrades, now would be the time to do it. Some credits, such as electric vehicles, are available until September 30, 2025. Other credits, like the residential clean energy credit, will end on December 31, 2025. This can help if you anticipate higher energy bills in the years to come, and reputable installers can assist with an estimated payback period,' he said. Be Aware: Open a 'Trump Account' A 'Trump account' can give your child a head start with investing money and accumulating wealth. Gammon highlighted the promising opportunity while encouraging people to monitor how it will work before investing additional money. 'If you have a child in 2025, I'd look into opening a 'Trump account.' The federal government will give $1,000 as a starter contribution. There are options to contribute further. I'd wait for more details on that, but would set it up for the initial $1,000,' he said. Children who are born between 2025 and 2028 are eligible for a $1,000 deposit, per CNBC. The money in the account will be invested in a fund that tracks the U.S. stock market, the outlet reported. Plan Your Taxes The bill can reduce your tax burden, especially if you use the standard deduction. Gammon explained how the new bill can add more money to your wallet. 'I would also look at your estimated 2025 taxes and adjust withholdings, if needed. The standard deductions moved for [couples who are married and filing jointly] from $30,000 to $31,500, or if you are single, it went from $15,000 to $15,750. This could lower your tax liability, where you can adjust your withholdings on your W-4 and free up extra monthly cash,' he said. Seniors can also get a boosted tax deduction thanks to the bill. Seniors who are 65 or older can get an additional $6,000 tax deduction if their modified adjusted gross income is below $75,000. Married couples filing jointly can capitalize on the additional tax deduction if their combined modified adjusted gross income is below $150,000. This additional tax deduction for seniors currently applies for the tax years 2025 to 2028. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement This article originally appeared on 3 Money Moves the Middle Class Should Make After the Passing of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Sign in to access your portfolio


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) banned remote work for state employees in March. By June, he was signing a bill that allowed it again. This stunning reversal in just three months tells you everything you need to know about the new reality of government work. The Texas about-face isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a fascinating pattern playing out in state capitals across America, where rigid return-to-office mandates are collapsing under the weight of economic reality and employee resistance. What started as executive orders demanding compliance has evolved into nuanced negotiations that treat office attendance as currency. California's Gavin Newsom escalated from two-day to four-day office requirements, only to watch unions trade away salary increases to keep their flexibility. Indiana's new governor included 'limited exceptions' in his return-to-office order from Day 1, signaling that negotiation had always been the endgame. The numbers driving these reversals are impossible to ignore. When California saved $700 million by downsizing office space and Texas discovered that remote work actually boosted productivity while slashing turnover, the economic argument for forcing everyone back to their desks evaporated. This transformation reveals a new playbook in which location has become as negotiable as salary. The speed of Texas's reversal deserves closer examination. When Abbott issued his executive order in March banning telework for state agencies, he positioned it as a matter of principle. State workers needed to be in state buildings, he said, serving Texans directly. The rhetoric was forceful, the timeline immediate. Yet within weeks, the facade began cracking under operational strain. State agencies that had already downsized their physical footprints suddenly faced the prospect of scrambling for office space. Parking lots that had been decommissioned would need resurrection. And employees who had restructured their lives around remote work began polishing their resumes for private-sector opportunities. The bipartisan rebellion that followed wasn't driven by ideology but by data. Texas's own productivity study showed that remote work hadn't just maintained service levels — it had actually improved them while dramatically reducing employee turnover. When Republican Rep. Giovanni Capriglione introduced House Bill 5196 to let agencies set their own remote policies, he wasn't making a statement about worker rights. He was acknowledging mathematical reality. Abbott's signature on the bill in June represents more than a policy reversal. It's an admission that top-down mandates can't override bottom-up economics. But while Texas stumbled into reversal through legislative intervention, California's governor appears to be playing a more sophisticated game. His journey from two-day office requirements to a four-day mandate might look like escalation, but the emerging pattern suggests something more strategic. When the Professional Engineers in California Government secured their one-year reprieve from the four-day requirement, they paid for it with salary concessions. Days later, the attorneys' union struck a remarkably similar deal. Newsom's mandate created leverage where none had existed before. SEIU Local 1000's lawsuit challenging the order cites the state's savings of 'at least $700 million' from office downsizing — money that would evaporate if 95,000 hybrid workers actually showed up four days a week. The California Department of General Services has shed 1.2 million square feet of Sacramento office space, a 14 percent reduction that represents real taxpayer savings. Reversing that efficiency would require a real estate shopping spree at precisely the moment California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. The genius lies in how the mandate functions as a negotiating tool. Unions that might have held firm on salary increases suddenly found themselves trading compensation for commute time. The Professional Engineers accepted mandatory unpaid time off that effectively negates their 3 percent raise for two years. In both cases, the unions prioritized flexibility over pay, revealing just how valuable remote work has become to their members. These reversals illuminate a broader transformation in how governments value physical presence versus actual productivity. When Gallup research indicates that flexible work arrangements can cut attrition by 50 percent, and when replacing skilled professionals costs between half and twice their annual salary, the mathematics of mandatory office attendance stop adding up. Indiana's new governor, Mike Braun, seems to be taking notes from both states with his executive order requiring state workers back by July 2025 but leaving 'limited exceptions' for ongoing negotiations. For public-sector unions, this new reality requires strategy. The California engineers and attorneys who accepted pay concessions to maintain remote work flexibility made a calculated bet that their members value time and autonomy over marginal salary increases. They are establishing that workplace flexibility has become a fundamental term of employment that can't be altered by executive fiat. The return-to-office reversals sweeping through state governments represent acknowledgments that the fundamental nature of work has changed. We are witnessing the emergence of a new employment paradigm where location flexibility has become as negotiable as wages and benefits. The smart leaders are those who recognized that physical presence has become a bargaining chip, valuable precisely because employees prize flexibility so highly. Rather than squander political capital on unenforceable mandates, they are trading flexibility for concessions that actually improve their states' fiscal positions. The organizations that thrive will be those that recognize flexibility not as a perk to be revoked, but as a strategic asset to be thoughtfully deployed. Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller' Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Live updates: House grinds to halt over Epstein; Trump to talk trade with Philippines leader
President Trump meets Tuesday with the leader of America's oldest ally in the Pacific, Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., at the White House. Marcos, the first leader of South Asian nations to visit the Trump White House, is looking to talk trade, after Trump put a 20 percent levy on the nation starting Aug. 1. 'My top priority for this visit is to push for greater economic engagement, particularly through trade and investment, between the Philippines and the United States,' he said upon his departure on Sunday. He met with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday to discuss the U.S.-Filipino military alliance in the shadow of China. In Congress, the Jeffrey Epstein saga has ground the House to a halt. Republicans are opting to not set up any votes, rather than deal with Democrats, who are looking to force GOP members into a number of politically difficult votes on the Epstein matter (as they did last week). The Senate is considering whether to forgo some of its August recess to vote on more Trump nominees, as the president has pressured the Senate GOP to do. For your reading list: