Political Potpourri

Brad Molnar

Gentle readers may recall during the last legislative session when Democratic lawmakers hid in Chicago to avoid voting on a measure that tied public employees’ pay raises to the rate of inflation and mandated they pay for part of their health care costs.

So the governor dispatched the Highway Patrol to search the honky-tonks and bars of Lakeside Drive, wrangling a quorum to finish his legislative agenda.

No, silly, it wasn’t Brian Schweitzer (D). It was Republican Scott Walker, the newly elected governor of Wisconsin. We had to settle for our governor wielding small, medium and large branding irons to veto Republican bills he labeled “bat crap crazy” as Republican leadership whined in the shadows claiming Schweitzer was not playing nice and people were getting tired of his shenanigans.

Wisconsin unions went to court claiming they had a right to negotiate through collective bargaining with the state’s chief executive and the outcome was binding on the Legislature. They lost. This was not change they could believe in, so they generated hope by gathering 900,000 signatures to force a recall election on June 5.

Before registering his brands, Schweitzer put a modest 1 percent in 2012 and 3 percent in 2013 in pay raises in the budget for state employees. He said it was a hardnosed negotiation, but the bat bit pointed out he was negotiating with his political donors and supporters, behind closed doors, so how hard could it have been? Several well rehearsed quips later, Republicans killed the pay raise.

Continue reading: Should Montana follow Wisconsin’s lead on pay?

 

By BOB BROWN

In the sweltering heat of August in San Diego a stocky and brawny Senator Richard Lugar barreled past me, sweat glistening on his brow, and soaking his T-shirt.  He was jogging with several young staffers during a break at the 1996 Republican National Convention.  Lugar was 64 then, but his boyish face and muscular conditioning made him appear younger.  In fact, he was the embodiment of vitality and energy.

Now Lugar is 80.  On television he appears aging and stooped.   His fellow Indiana Republicans recently trounced the old gentleman in their primary election.  They didn’t toss him out because he was too old, however.  They tossed him because he was too old-fashioned.

By his record Lugar was a conservative, but he followed the old Senate custom of sometimes reaching across the center aisle to work with members of the opposition party.  In the past, notably in the era of Senate Democratic leader Mike Mansfield and Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen, that is how things in Congress got done.  As now, nearly 36 years ago when Lugar entered the Senate, there were sharp philosophical differences between the two political parties.  But then, the two sides had mastered the difficult art of reaching out for allies without sacrificing their principles. Today that is a lost art.

Continue reading: Constitution requires compromise

Eons ago I wrote a column based on a conversation with pontificating pig farmer, Marty Mohr of Park City, Mont. Marty allowed that Brian Schweitzer might beat Roy Brown in the governor’s race, so perhaps I should be his lieutenant governor to pull him to the right occasionally. Because Marty holds his Levis up with baling twine, the character Kalvin Twine became the spokesperson for fashionable bipartisan filing.

When the column appeared in print, Schweitzer called me three times to discuss the legality of bipartisan teams and the political wisdom of same. He still asks about the welfare of Kalvin Twine, and we share a laugh.

Since then Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger has been on TV ads, during campaign season, espousing his political differences with Gov. Schweitzer. During the Great In-between, Bohlinger has been reported walking the governor’s dog with plastic glove in hand, greeting returning troops at the airport, and giving commencement speeches for small-town eighth-grade students.

Bohlinger has never attended a Republican caucus during a legislative session. Lt. Gov. Bohlinger is rarely seen in an official capacity but then getting between Schweitzer and a camera could lead to a work comp claim, so perhaps it is just pragmatic self preservation.

Continue reading: Searching for the Second Banana

By Sen. Bruce Tutvedt Since the 2008 elections, we’ve seen a battle at both the state and federal level over the power of organized labor and its effort to forcibly unionize workers. Big Labor has found a president who will carry its water, pushing legislation and enacting regulatory changes that favor union bosses over workers and job creators. The extent of their influence became all-too apparent in the national controversy that culminated with Obama’s labor relations board prohibiting a Boeing manufacturing facility from being located in a state not favored by Big Labor. But high-profile event is just the tip of the iceberg—President Obama’s three years in office have been defined by his efforts to pay back union bosses for bankrolling his 2008 campaign, having spent half a billion dollars to get him elected. The recent recess appointments of two union allies to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—in direct defiance of the Constitution—is just the latest example of the giveaways. Previous to that, Obama’s labor board authorized the formation of “micro-units” or small collective bargaining units which will result in severe discord in places of work with various unions working against each other in search of enhanced benefits with the employer stuck in the middle. The increased costs associated with managing multiple labor contracts is bad news for Montana businesses. The unelected government bureaucrats at the NLRB have also decided to close the amount of time over which union elections take place, hurrying the process so labor bosses can ambush business owners and provide them little to no time to respond. Even concerns about the integrity of the election proceedings can no longer be raised until after the vote has taken place. That creates a situation where a collective bargaining unit can be formed before the employer even has any real chance to meaningfully address the unionization of his or her business. Since 2007, Big Labor has been working feverishly to enact the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA), which eliminates the secret ballot and allows government to dictate contract terms to employees and employers. Since Congress rejected this deeply flawed bill, Obama’s friends in the labor movement have decided to co-opt executive agencies like the NLRB and have them enact EFCA by fiat. At the state level, the resurgent push for right-to-work laws has been a bright spot for employee rights even though labor bosses have fought it every step of the way. There is no debate that the economies in right-to-work states have outpaced Montana’s in the past decade. Thankfully, workers and business owners also have allies in Congress who have successfully opposed some of these forced unionization schemes. For instance, the Employee Rights Act, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, would be a big help for Montana workers who want to fight forced unionization. This legislation requires that unions hold a recertification vote every three years. Currently, new workers may be required to join a union they don’t want and may never get a chance to vote on the issue. As we recently saw with the dispute over union contracts at an Albertson’s in Kalispell, union bosses will do whatever they can to maintain an advantage and keep union dues flowing into their pockets. It certainly didn’t help workers that labor friendly bureaucrats at the NLRB swooped in to bail out the union bosses. There are other pieces of legislation that have been introduced as well such as the Representation Fairness Restoration Act. It would disallow the formation of “micro-units” preserving the integrity of the workplace. And recently, the U.S. House passed the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act in a bipartisan vote. The legislation would prohibit “ambush” elections for taking place and prevent “micro-units” from being created. Of course, legislative efforts to help workers and business owners fight the encroachment of Big Labor will find resistance by President Obama and other recipients of labor’s largesse in Congress. That’s why it’s so important we hold our elected officials to account and ask them to tell us where they stand on these issues. I hope we can count on our Congressional delegation to stand up for workplace fairness. It’s time our elected officials to tell Montanans whether they support home state workers or will kowtow to out-of-state labor bosses. Senator Bruce Tutvedt represents Senate District 3 in Kalispell. He is the chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee.

By Will Deschamps This month marks the 200th anniversary of when Governor Gerry of Massachusetts signed a bill that redistricted the state to benefit his political party. One of the odd-looking districts in the Boston area was said to resemble a salamander, and so the first “gerrymander” (Gerry + salamander) was born. This manipulative method of political gamesmanship continues to this day, including right here in Montana. As Montana undertakes the process of legislative redistricting, the Democratic Party has put out a proposed map that would even make Governor Gerry blush. With the use of sophisticated computer software and your political voting preferences, they have put out a map that will maximize their chances in legislative elections – whether majorities voted for them or not. We obtained a small sample of the projections the Democrats have made about their own map. In the 19 districts where we saw the Democrats’ estimated numbers, there was a majority of Republicans voters. However, they carved bizarre lines which allowed Democrats to win up to 58% of the seats, with Republicans only winning as few as 42%. How are they able to do this? According to their own figures, the Democrats generally under-populate districts that lean their way through the use of deviation. Republican leaning districts are generally over-populated. In addition, they put just enough Democrats in most of their districts to guarantee victory so they can spread their voters out over a larger area. Finally, they ignored county lines and city limits in areas like Butte, Anaconda and the city of Helena in order to draw bizarre legislative lines that overwhelmed rural and suburban areas with urban voters. That is why there are slightly more Republican voters in this 19 district snapshot, but the outcomes favor Democrats. Folks, that is classic gerrymandering. We believe the public is sick and tired of politics as usual. Montanans do not like the idea of government officials using election results and voting data to manipulate future election outcomes. There is a better way. Montana’s current redistricting commission adopted criteria that are part of our state constitution, along with additional criteria that will be helpful in developing legislative boundaries that will reflect Montana values. Those criteria include population equality with maximum 3% deviation, compact and contiguous districts, protection of minority voting rights, respecting existing political subdivision lines, communities of interest and traditional neighborhoods. Republicans on the commission have opted to use maps developed by non-partisan legislative staff as starting points for this final phase of redistricting. As they hear legitimate suggestions from the public, they will bring forward amendments to make those changes. That is how the process should work. Note that there is no Republican party map. There is only a Democrat party map, and maps produced by non-partisan state employees. We do not want to rig the system to our own advantage. We seek only a neutral playing field in this. We oppose all districts drawn by partisan operatives, of whatever party. This spring, the commission will travel the state to hear from you – the voters. Hearings will be in Missoula, Pablo, Kalispell, Helena, Butte, Bozeman, Billings, Lewistown, Crow Agency, Wolf Point, Miles City, Havre, Great Falls, and Browning. More information on these meetings is at www.leg.mt.gov. If you cannot attend one of the hearings, feel free to send your comments through email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . If you oppose gerrymandering boundaries just for the sake of political gains, please send in your comments to the commission. We need real representation for Montanans, not political manipulation. Will Deschamps is Chairman of the Montana Republican Party.

Continue reading: Democrats gerrymandering Montana