The Montana House of Representatives voted on party lines Wednesday to discipline transgender Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr by barring her from the chamber’s floor, anteroom and gallery for the remainder of the 68th Montana Legislature, which is scheduled to end no later than May 5.

House Majority Leader Sue Vinton, R-Billings, who brought the motion to bar Zephyr, said the Missoula representative will be allowed to vote remotely but will not be allowed to speak during floor debates. Zephyr’s punishment will not apply to her work in committees, which will continue unrestricted, though most legislative action occurs on the floor at this point in the session.

The disciplinary action follows a protest of House Speaker Matt Regier’s decision to not recognize Zephyr during floor debates that erupted in the House gallery Monday. During the disruption, when protesters chanted “let her speak” and police began handcuffing people and removing them from the gallery, Zephyr remained on the floor, holding her microphone in the air.

“Monday, this body witnessed one of its members participating in conduct that disrupted and disturbed the orderly proceedings of the body,” Vinton said in support of her motion. “This member did not accede to the order of the speaker to come to order and finally to clear the floor and instead encouraged the continuation of the disruption of this body, placing legislators, staff and even our pages at risk of harm.”

Montana Highway Patrol officers arrested seven protesters on misdemeanor trespassing charges as they cleared out the galley on Wednesday. A joint force of riot police from the city of Helena and the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office was also present. Police citations state the protesters were removed from the gallery and charged with trespassing for disrupting legislative proceedings, but document no violence or property damage.

Almost a week before the protest, Zephyr told lawmakers they would have blood on their hands for supporting Senate Bill 99, legislation that restricts gender-affirming care for transgender youth — a reference, she’s said, to increased suicide risks for people who don’t have access to such medical treatments. Zephyr is the first openly trans woman elected to the Montana Legislature, and Republicans have brought multiple bills this session restricting and criminalizing transgender health care and expression.

Her remarks generated an immediate objection from Vinton and, later, a call from the hard-right Montana Freedom Caucus for Zephyr to be censured. In a Wednesday press release, the Freedom Caucus noted that it was the first to advocate consequences for Zephyr.

For several days after her remarks, Zephyr attempted to register to speak about bills before the House and Regier refused to recognize her, which is the speaker’s prerogative under House rules. Regier suggested he might recognize her again if she apologized, but Zephyr made it clear that wouldn’t happen.

“I have lost friends to suicide this year,” she said last week. “I field the calls from multiple families who dealt with suicide attempts, with trans youth who have fled the state, people who have been attacked on the side of the road, because of legislation like this. I spoke with clarity and precision about the harm these bills do. And they say they want an apology, but what they really want is silence as they take away the rights of trans and queer Montanans.”

The conflict came to a head on Monday, with protesters’ chants drowning out Regier’s attempts to bring the House to order after a vote to affirm his ruling. Republican justifications of the motion to censure Zephyr Wednesday have focused mostly on Monday’s events, rather than her remarks last week.

Zephyr, whom the speaker allowed an opportunity to speak on the floor Wednesday under the procedure for disciplining a member, defended Monday’s protest as an expression of disenfranchisement by her 11,0000 constituents.

“And when I continued to not be recognized, what my constituents and my community did is they came here and said, ‘That is our voice in this body. Let her speak,’” Zephyr said on the floor. “And when the speaker gaveled down the people demanding that democracy work, demanding that their representative be heard, what he was doing was driving a nail in the coffin of democracy. But you cannot kill democracy that easily, and that is why they kept chanting ‘let her speak,’ and why I raised my microphone to amplify their voices.”

Republicans on Wednesday pursued the motion to censure Zephyr under a combination of legislative rules and the Montana Constitution, which says a chamber of the Legislature can “expel or punish a member for good cause shown with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members.”

Rep. Casey Knudsen, R-Malta, who chairs the House Rules Committee, said on the floor Wednesday that Zephyr “violated the collective rights and safety of 99 other members of this body, our staff, our pages and the public,” which he identified as “good cause” for punishment.

Other lawmakers from either side of the aisle also rose to explain their votes Wednesday.

Rep. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Box Elder, said his uncle always told him to keep one thing in mind: “No matter who we are, that we are all equal under the eyes of almighty. And always remember, when you point your finger at somebody, look how many are pointing back.”

Windy Boy, whose first term in the Legislature was in 2003, said he’s seen lawmakers nearly come to blows on the floor with no consequence. He recalled an incident in 2013 when then-Senate President Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, refused to recognize Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso, D-Butte. Democrats pounded their desks with coffee cups and other items in protest.

“We got up and we hit the desks, we almost got charged for messing up the state’s property,” Windy Boy said. “Why weren’t we disciplined at that time? We should have. I would have went to jail, and I would have been found guilty. We’re picking one person in this body for something she believes is right.”

Two Republicans who spoke — Knudsen and Hamilton Rep. David Bedey — had previously voted against upholding Regier’s decision not to recognize Zephyr, but showed an apparent change of heart following Monday’s protest.

“The behavior of [Zephyr] has been in the news for over a week,” Bedey said. “And I must admit [that] opinions concerning her prior utterances vary, even within my caucus. But today we’re not here to pass judgment on what might have been said or done before this past Monday, but rather to consider the specific actions that were taken on a specific day.”

Zephyr, he said, could have chosen to leave the floor with other lawmakers or attempted to “calm the crowd.”

A small gathering of protesters assembled outside the Capitol Wednesday. Legislative leadership preemptively closed both the House and Senate galleries, which the public is usually free to access to observe legislative proceedings.

The discipline imposed by the House Wednesday is likely unprecedented in the state’s modern history. In 1975, then-majority Democrats could not get adequate support for a motion to censure three Republican lawmakers regarding an alleged campaign practices violation. Before the ratification of the state’s 1972 Constitution — a time in Montana history when corruption was a fixture of the state’s political culture — there appear to have been several efforts to expel lawmakers, some successful. The first dates to 1897, when lawmakers voted to expel Martin Buckley of Jefferson County.

Regier, in a press conference following the House’s vote Wednesday, said restricting Zephyr from the floor is necessary to ensure the safety of the body and to maintain decorum.

“We’ve had multiple breaches of decorum,” Regier said. “We do every session, we have people from both sides of the aisle … that breach decorum” and they usually apologize and say they’ll stay within the rules moving forward. “We’re not going to treat one representative differently from the other 99,” he added.

Wednesday marked the second consecutive day in which the House did not vote on any legislation on second reading — the main hurdle bills face in each chamber. On Tuesday, Regier canceled the House floor session with no explanation. On Wednesday, the House adjourned shortly after the motion to punish Zephyr passed.

House Minority Leader Kim Abbott, D-Helena, on Wednesday defended Zephyr and criticized the “opportunity cost” of the motion to restrict Zephyr’s participation with so few days left in the session. The Montana Constitution caps the length of regular legislative sessions at 90 legislative days.

“We don’t have a state budget,” Abbott said on the floor. “We don’t have a plan for housing. We don’t have a plan for childcare. We don’t have a plan for permanent property tax relief. We don’t have a plan for mental health. We don’t have a plan for provider rates. And today we’re on this floor debating this motion and hopefully we can get back to work. I sure hope so.”

She described her vote against the motion as a vote supporting constitutional principles.

“You know what, I agree that you absolutely can do this — by rule, by the Constitution, by Mason’s [Manual of Legislative Procedure],” Abbott said on the floor. “But just because you can do it does not mean that’s the right choice.”

Mara Silvers contributed reporting.

The post House Republicans bar Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr for breaching decorum appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill and Gov. Mark Gordon oppose the secretary of state’s request to join their defense of the state’s abortion ban in an ongoing lawsuit.

Gordon and Hill, both defendants in the case challenging the ban, claim in a brief filed Tuesday that Chuck Gray doesn’t have legal standing, and that joining the case “in his official capacity” as secretary of state is contrary to Wyoming statutes.

“Public officers such as the Secretary of State ‘have and can exercise only such powers as are conferred to them by law,’” the filing states, citing the case McDougall v. Board of Land Commissioners of Wyoming.

“In Wyoming, the powers and duties of the Secretary of State are prescribed by the Wyoming Legislature,” the filing continues. “In his official capacity, Secretary of State Gray cannot intervene in this case unless a Wyoming statute authorizes him to do so.”

While Gray has argued he has standing given his role as successor to the governor and public records custodian, the defendants state neither give him authority to intervene or even participate in the trial.

Plaintiffs fighting for abortion access noted that potential intervenors could request to file amicus briefs in the case if denied the right to intervene. That option would allow them to share their perspective and evidence.

“In his official capacity, Secretary of State Gray cannot intervene in this case unless a Wyoming statute authorizes him to do so.”

AG/Governor filing in abortion ban case

Gordon and Hill, however, argue that Gray should not be allowed participation of any kind.

Ninth District Court Judge Melissa Owens has scheduled a hearing for May 24 at 1 p.m. to consider arguments from all sides for and against admitting the potential intervenors. Other defendants in the case have until May 1 to file a response to the intervenors’ request, and the intervenors have until May 19 to reply.

The governor and attorney general don’t oppose Right to Life of Wyoming or Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody) or Chip Neiman’s (R-Hulett) requests to intervene in the case. The defendants do, however, “disagree with the intervenors’ apparent belief that this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing or a formal trial in this case and do oppose this Court granting them intervention based on the premise that such a hearing or trial is necessary.”

The case only involves “questions of law,” the filing states, which precludes the need for such a hearing or trial. That suggests the judge should only consider whether the new abortion bans are constitutional on their face, excluding information or evidence that goes beyond what’s needed to make that narrow determination.

Instead, defendants argue, the judge should issue a “summary judgment,” which would limit expenses for all parties.

The potential intervenors — excluding Gray — tried to intervene in the case over the state’s previous ban last year, but were denied. They appealed that decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court, but asked it to be dismissed in light of the 2023 ban that replaced the one from 2022.

Observers expect the case to ultimately be decided by the Wyoming Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome in district court, where it currently sits.

The post Gov., AG oppose secretary of state’s request to join abortion ban defense appeared first on WyoFile.

In 2022, prompted by the political shifts in Shasta County over the last few years, Kevin Crye ran for Shasta County Supervisor as a political newcomer, beating out his well-connected political adversary, Erin Resner, by only ninety votes.

Now, after only a few months in office, he’s facing a potential recall  by community members who say his decisions have embarrassed and destabilized the County.

During the Tuesday, April 25 County Board meeting, community member Jeff Gorder presented a Notice of Intent to Recall Crye on behalf of the recently formed informal organization, Shasta County Citizens for Stable Government.

The attempted recall is primarily based on Crye’s support for changes to County election systems, decisions he’s made in tandem with two others on the five-member Board, Chris Kelstrom and Patrick Jones.

Recalling any of the three would change the Board’s majority, likely tilting future decisions in a different direction. But Crye may be the easiest target for a recall because of the narrow margin of votes with which he won office.

He represents the voters of District 1, the County’s geographically smallest and least rural District. During his campaign, he said he hoped his time in office would allow more voices to be heard and help heal a “hurting, fractured” County.

But his decisions to cancel the County’s contract for Dominion voting machines and move towards an unprecedented plan to hand count all future election votes seem to have worsened the County’s political divides.

As one of two new supervisors seated in January, Crye helped form a Board majority with a stated interest in reshaping the County around new priorities that included increasing trust in the elections process, rooting out government corruption, and reducing County staffing and costs.

The Board’s decisions since then have infuriated some community members, including those who’ve banded together as part of Shasta County Citizens for Stable Government.

Gorder says the group formed a few months ago when members of the community began meeting to discuss community concerns with recent Board decisions and actions that could be taken to address those concerns.

In a press release issued Tuesday, the group wrote that Crye’s political actions have gambled with their votes, wasted their money, and destabilized their home.

They’re concerned that Shasta County voters might be disenfranchised if plans to develop a new election system are not in place in time for the next election or don’t yield vote totals in time to comply with State law.

Some also worry about how County spending to fund that new election system will impact other County services. County Staff estimates that Supervisors’ plans to hand count votes will increase election costs by over $3 million just through the end of 2025. And that money will come from the General Fund, which means it will impact other budgeted programs and services.

Recall proponents are also angry that a majority of the Board voted to offer the County’s CEO position to Chriss Street, a controversial applicant best known as Vice President of New California, an organization which hopes to split the state in two.

The Board later rescinded that offer of employment after reviewing the results of Street’s background check. Street’s background includes being ordered by a federal judge to pay $7 million for mismanaging a trust fund.

When it comes to Crye specifically, recall proponents say his decision to consult on County election processes with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has been an outspoken proponent of claims of fraud in the 2020 election, further indicates his lack of qualification for County leadership. A few months ago, Crye traveled to speak with Lindell. He has confirmed that he’s billed his expenses for that trip to the County.

Gorder, speaking on behalf of the recall group, said while the reasons to recall Crye also apply to Kelstrom and Jones, community members have decided to focus on Crye in order to focus resources on the recall most likely to be successful.

“The positive response of District 1 voters to our informal polling and outreach efforts has been significant,” Gorder said.

“Our current effort is focused on changing the balance of power on the BOS. If we can shift one vote towards the “true conservatives,” i.e., the fiscally responsible, fact-based, commonsensical Republicans Rickert and Garman, we can bring back stable government to Shasta County.”

In a statement sent to Shasta Scout, Crye said the recall is “backed by liberal democrats” who have been planning it since before he was elected.

“As your Shasta County District 1 Supervisor,” Crye wrote, “I am proud of the work we have accomplished and will continue to serve the people of Shasta County.”

A statement by the Committee to Recall Kevin Crye, a subset of Shasta County Citizens for Stable Government, states that the group is made up of everyday citizens from a diversity of backgrounds, opinions, political affiliations, cultures and interests.

“The common purpose that unites us all,” the group wrote, “is that our elected officials follow the law, behave ethically and with common sense, and act responsibly as the stewards of our tax dollars.”

The Notice of Intent to Recall served on Crye this week is only the first step towards a recall election. Proponents will now attempt to gather the signatures of 20% (or 4,151) of Shasta County’s 20,757 District 1 voters. Should they succeed, an election to decide whether Crye is recalled would be held in November 2023 along with two other special elections.

According to Shasta County Clerk of Elections Cathy Darling Allen, if Crye’s recall is successful, his replacement will initially be appointed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, then later filled by County election, likely in November 2024.

Local businesswoman and former Redding City Council member Erin Resner, who narrowly lost to Crye in 2022, declined to comment on whether she would run for the position if Crye is recalled.

During his campaign, Crye referred to himself as a political outsider committed to fairness, truth, and honesty and determined to be a champion of the people’s voices.

Speaking to Shasta Scout before his election, Crye said he’s not an extremist and shouldn’t be lumped with other candidates just because he shares a similar platform or supporters. Crye’s campaign was indirectly supported by a political action committee funded by former County resident, Reverge Anselmo, who has also supported the campaigns of Jones and Kelstrom, among others.

See Shasta Scout’s campaign interview with Kevin Crye here.

If you have a correction to this story you can submit it here. Have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org

Koch groups, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, hospitals are some of the biggest lobbiers in the state.

By Peter Cameron, THE BADGER PROJECT

The Milwaukee Brewers quintupled their lobbying spending in the past decade, according to filings with the state.

The ballclub is just one of many organizations large and small that lobby in the state’s capital. Lobbying is the attempt to influence legislative or administrative action, according to the state.

Lobbyists must be registered with the state, and they must also report their hours and dollars spent lobbying to the state. Business associations, like the powerful Wisconsin Manufacturing & Commerce, and others spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year trying to shape, promote and block legislation. But by law, lobbyists or organizations who are lobbying are not allowed to give candidates or state officials anything of monetary value, like meals, transportation or lodging, unless that gift is also available to the public. Lobbyists or organizations who lobby can make a financial campaign donation to a candidate for office, but only between the start of a campaign and the election. The average person can make a campaign donation to a politician at any time.

Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Legislature are currently in the process of crafting the state’s 2-year budget, which could top out at more than $100 billion, so interest groups and their lobbyists have shifted into high gear in a year the state has a record $7 billion surplus at its disposal.

Brewers: $693k, Bucks: 0

After reporting spending nothing on lobbying in the 2013-2014 session, the Brewers spent a total of $120,000 in the two sessions between 2015 and 2018, to $222,000 in the 2019-20 session and then $435,000 in the 2021-2022 session.

The Brewers are seeking hundreds of millions in state funding to renovate their stadium, now called American Family Field. The stadium is owned and operated by a local government unit called the Southeast Professional Baseball Park District, which represents Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha counties.

The ballclub is negotiating with Evers, a Democrat and vocal Brewers fan, and Republicans who control the state legislature. The state wants a commitment from the Brewers to stay in Milwaukee for a number of years in exchange for renovation funding. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, the top Republican in the state, recently said his party does not support a subsidy to the team.

The Brewers did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Similarly, the Milwaukee Bucks reported spending nearly $700,000 in lobbying in the 2015-2016 legislative session, as the team was trying to secure funding for its new arena, the Fiserv Forum, which ultimately began construction in 2016. The Bucks eventually got $250 million in funds from the state and Milwaukee County to build the stadium. The NBA team has not reported any lobbying since then.

Realtors double their lobbying

The Wisconsin Realtors Association, which bills itself as lobbying on behalf of homeowners and property owners, has dramatically and steadily increased its lobbying efforts in the past ten years, from nearly $500,000 in the 2013-2014 session to nearly $1.2 million in the 2021-2022 session, making it one of the top lobbiers in the state.

Asked about the large increase, Joe Murray, political and governmental affairs director for the association, said in an email that the association has many lobbying interests, and noted lobbying expenses were lower when Republicans had full control of state government. But Evers’ election in 2018 means the association now needs to lobby both sides, he said.

“Divided government requires more time to get agreement on difficult issues,” he said. “This is not cheap.”

Other big spenders, from business to farming

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s chamber of commerce, is regularly the biggest lobbier in the state, spending about $1.4 million per 2-year legislative session. The Wisconsin Hospital Association is often second, spending about $1.3 million per legislative session. The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation regularly spends more than $1 million per legislative session. The Wisconsin Insurance Alliance regularly spends more than $500,000 per session.

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood had spent relatively little in recent sessions, but increased that to more than $400,000 in the last legislative session, during which Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. That made Wisconsin’s 1849 ban on abortion relevant again.

Lobbying for Libations

The Tavern League of Wisconsin, which represents the state’s thousands of bars, generally spends about $230,000 per session on lobbying, regularly outside the top 50 lobbying spenders. The Wisconsin Beer Distributors Association spent between $80,000 and $380,000 per legislative session in the last decade. Molson Coors, which acquired full ownership of Miller Brewing in Milwaukee in 2016, started lobbying in the state after the purchase, and spent an average of about $275,000 in each of the past two legislative sessions. Wisconsin Wine and Spirit Institute, which represents wholesalers, reported spending about $275,000 in each of the past two legislative sessions.

The Koch Network

The Koch Network’s organization Americans For Prosperity, which advocates for free market policies, lower taxes and limited government, are one of the top lobbiers in Wisconsin, spending more than $700,000 last session.

Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, which lobbies more specifically for Koch Industries on issues like the environment, energy, taxation, and business policy, consistently spends more than $300,000 every legislative session.

AT&T Wisconsin

AT&T Wisconsin has drastically cut its lobbying in the past decade, dropping from more than $700,000 in the 2013-2014 session down to about $33,000 in the 2021-2022 session. Since Evers, a Democrat, was elected governor in 2018, the state has been much less friendly to large phone and internet companies, as his administration has favored smaller, local co-ops when awarding state grants for rural high-speed internet expansion. AT&T did not respond to a request for comment.

Kwik Trip

The popular LaCrosse-based convenience store/gas station chain has steadily increased its lobbying in recent years, from about $265,000 in the 2015-2016 legislative session to about $376,000 in the 2021-2022 session.

Asked about the reasons behind that increase, John McHugh, Kwik Trip’s director of public relations, wrote in an email “We are not interested in participating in this story.”

With hundreds of stores in Wisconsin, Kwik Trip lobbies on many bills, including in favor of a pending bill that allows “persons to charge fees for the use of electric vehicle charging stations.”

Governmental advocacy groups

The Wisconsin Counties Association, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County regularly spend six figures per legislative session, pushing for funding and favorable legislation for their municipalities.

The top lobbiers in Wisconsin for the 2021-2022 legislative session

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

The post LOBBYING IN WISCONSIN: Seeking hundreds of millions in stadium funding, Milwaukee Brewers have boosted lobbying spending in recent years appeared first on The Badger Project.

---

LOBBYING IN WISCONSIN: Seeking hundreds of millions in stadium funding, Milwaukee Brewers have boosted lobbying spending in recent years was first posted on April 18, 2023 at 7:00 am.