As a candidate for the Montana senate, my voting record as the Representative for House District 88 during the 68th Montana Legislature in 2023 has come under scrutiny, as it should. I have nothing to hide and can defend the votes that I took. Taken together, they reflect my conservative principles and values.
First of all, I voted more often by percentage on the side taken by most Republicans in our respective chambers than my opponent, Senator Theresa Manzella, did. The Montana Free Press’s 2023 Capitol Tracker provides floor vote statistics for every legislator during the 68th Montana Legislature. Based on 2,697 House floor votes involving bills, 94 percent of my votes were cast on the side taken by most Republicans (average for House Republicans is 91 percent). In contrast, only 89 percent of my opponent’s votes were cast on the side taken by most Republicans (average for Senate Republicans is 92 percent) based on 2,599 Senate floor votes.
Furthermore, my opponent voted more frequently with Democrats when our votes are compared with the Republican average in our respective chambers. My opponent cast 61 percent of her votes on the side taken by most Democrats – six percentage points higher than the average of 56 percent for Senate Republicans. In contrast, I voted only three percentage points more frequently with Democrats than the average House Republican – 74 percent versus 71 percent.
As a constitutional conservative, I oppose any constitutional amendment, bill, resolution, or other legislative action that adversely affects the fundamental principles of the U.S. and Montana constitutions. Among these principles are popular sovereignty, separation of powers, federalism, rule of law, limited government, judicial independence, and individual rights. This authentic constitutional conservatism informed my votes on several occasions in the last legislative session that I determined would trespass upon one or more of these fundamental principles.
In addition, I was guided by the unwritten democratic norm of forbearance when considering the constitutional amendments during the 68th Legislative Session. Like the U.S. Constitution, the Montana Constitution sets a high bar to amend it. Article XIV, Section 8, provides that two-thirds of the state legislature must vote for a proposed amendment before it is submitted to the Montana voters for approval. I believe this legislative super-majority is required to ensure that any amendment submitted to the voters has bipartisan support. Although two-thirds meets the letter of the law, when there are no “yes” votes from across the aisle, I don’t believe that it meets the spirit of the law. I wanted to avoid any action that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit.
A good example of a bill that did have bipartisan support was Constitutional Amendment 48 on the 2022 general election ballot. This digital privacy measure passed unanimously in the senate and on a 76-23 vote in the house, and Montana voters approved the amendment 82 percent to 18 percent. It is now part of the Montana Constitution.
A good example of a constitutional amendment that should not have received any support from either party was House Bill (HB) 915 in the 68th session. It proposed to change the method of selection for justices of the Montana Supreme Court from statewide elections to appointments made by the governor. With eight-year staggered terms and no guarantee of reappointment for supreme court justices, a two-term governor would be able to appoint (or replace) all seven justices on the supreme court by the end of his or her eight years in office. Did the Republicans who voted for this amendment assume that there would never be another Democratic governor?
HB 915 was just one of several bills changing the judicial branch that I voted against because they would have adversely affected the constitutional principles of separation of powers, rule of law, and judicial independence. Two bills, HB 464 and HB 595, would have inserted party partisanship into judicial elections, which would have destroyed judicial impartiality and eroded judicial legitimacy. Another constitutional amendment, HB 965, would have removed rulemaking authority from the Montana Supreme Court, making Montana the only state in the country in which the state’s highest court does not govern admission to the state bar and the conduct of its members.
There are two other constitutional amendments that I voted against that I can defend based on the conservative principle that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” HB 372 (right to hunt) would not have granted any additional privileges to Montanans that are not already in the constitution and would have simply created more work for lawyers as the meaning of some of the new constitutional language is litigated. HB 551 (constitutional carry) is unnecessary because permitless concealed carry is already allowed in the law and passing this amendment wouldn’t add any further gun rights.
I voted against HB 517, the constitutional amendment regarding the board of regents of higher education, because I believe that there was a high potential for infringement on academic freedom based on vague language in the bill and because of its attempt to bring the board of regents under legislative control. Another constitutional amendment on redistricting, Senate Bill (SB) 534, I voted against because redistricting is inherently and unavoidably partisan. So it makes no sense to attempt to take political partisanship out of drawing political maps.
Two more bills, HB 527 and HB 604, I voted against because they clearly violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. HB 527 proposed to require a congressional declaration of war to release the Montana National Guard to active duty combat. In addition to violating the supremacy clause, HB 604, the “Sheriffs first bill,” attempts to nullify federal law.
I voted against HB 865 because, in its proposal to limit local government expenditure growth, it would adversely affect the fundamental principle of federalism and the related principle of subsidiarity.
Finally, I voted against SJ (Senate Joint Resolution) 15, the resolution on Marbury v. Madison. Although resolutions are not laws, they are important policy statements. I voted against this resolution because I disagree with its assertions. In particular, I do not believe that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government have “a co-equal responsibility” to “interpret” the constitution nor do I believe that the legislative and the executive branches have “equal roles” alongside the courts in determining the constitutionality of laws. If there is no consensus on who is the final decision-maker on the meaning of the constitution, it would cause chaos and throw our whole system of government in disarray.
I’m adding to this list one bill that I did vote for because there’s been many misunderstandings or lies about it circulating. That is HB 402, which proposed to revise elector registration laws by requiring the Montana Secretary of State to verify the citizenship status of new applicants. I voted for HB 402 because it would have required the verification of U.S. citizenship to vote, which is not, believe it or not, currently required by either federal or state law. HB 402 would have made Montana the first state in the country to verify voter citizenship upon registration. It would not have allowed noncitizens to vote legally.
Paid for by Rusk for Legislature. P.O. Box 531, Corvallis, MT 59828. Republican.