For all of Austin Knudsen’s certainty that Montana’s judiciary is chocked full of liberal, activist judges, he seems a lot less certain about the law itself.
That is not exactly a reassuring look for the state’s attorney general.
Or for a Republican who is part of the party that claims it’s the defender of law and order.
It’s actually stunning that an attorney can pass judgment on the judges but be so dumbfounded by the law itself. For us common folk, you would think it would be the other way around.
But the Republican Attorney General who has openly flouted state campaign laws, saying he was correct in breaking them because he regarded them as “silly,” is also the one that has had a sudden change of heart because now the laws must be obeyed.
If you’re keeping track of this logic, it goes something like this: Montana laws are silly either when he has to follow them, or when he declares them so. Otherwise, the laws are the laws, period, and must be enforced.
Knudsen, who loves the sound of his voice on radio but can’t be bothered with answering questions from other journalists, recently took to the airwaves on “Talk Back Missoula” to defend embattled Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, a fellow Republican, who decided to change the definition of who could sign a constitutional ballot measure in Montana, without notice in the middle of counting ballots that were destined for Treasure State voters.
“I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the chief elections official in the state to make sure those laws are being followed,” Knudsen said on Monday. “I think it’s a cop-out to say, ‘Oh, just let it be. Whatever. It’s fine. Trust us. Just put it on the ballot.’ Well, there are again, we either have laws in this country or don’t. We have to make sure those laws are being followed. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the chief elections official, the Secretary of State, not the attorney general, to make sure those laws are being followed.”
Dear friends, remember that just a little more than a month ago, Knudsen took a much more morally flexible approach to Montana laws. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Knudsen said:
“I do technically have a primary. However, he is a young man who I asked to run against me, because our campaign laws are ridiculous,” Knudsen said.
Remember that Knudsen was accused of blatantly ignoring campaign laws, and recruiting a candidate who was later found to be ineligible so that he could violate campaign finance laws that have been on the books, but never really enforced.
Folks, if the attorney general of the state cannot be relied on to enforce the state’s laws, who should? And why should we have faith that whatever laws he’ll enforce won’t be selectively tailored to fit his own political purposes, if he’s willing to ignore the rules to help himself raise more cash but then assert that the laws must be followed in cases where the state’s GOP has openly declared its opposition to three ballot measures?
It’s worth pointing out that not only the district court judge but the seven other fellow attorneys who happen to sit on the Montana Supreme Court all disagreed with Knudsen’s interpretation on the ballot signatures. In their decisions, the two courts didn’t even deal with the statutory arguments Jacobsen’s office was making because they all determined that her office, not the law, had created this ballot ballyhoo.
Both district court Judge Mike Menahan, as well as the unanimous Montana Supreme Court, said that it was Jacobsen’s interpretation of a law (not even a Montana one, but one from … Oregon) which prompted the office to change the software of the state’s election database to start rejecting “inactive” voters.
“I think Montana looks to itself in determining its own constitution,” Menahan said, rejecting the law from Oregon.
It’s worth noting: Democrats and Republicans for at least the past three decades had counted signatures the same way, and that Jacobsen’s timing, right in the middle of signature counting for three seemingly popular initiatives, raised serious questions, seeing as how she appeared to be hiding the change that only came to light after an anonymous whistleblower.
The courts said that Jacobsen shouldn’t expect the judiciary to intervene in a case she herself, through some questionable decisions, advice and leadership, created. Instead, the courts have politely but firmly refused to get involved just because someone caught her reprogramming the state’s election software.
For a political party that seems so paranoid about stolen elections and fake voters, it seems the only ones who are actually changing the rules and the election systems in a clandestine fashion are Republicans in Montana.
But at least Jacobsen’s acts are understandable as a party operative, even if disappointing as an elected official.
Knudsen is a little harder to figure because he’s been to law school and is, at least until the Supreme Court decides his fate in 41 ethics counts, a member of the Montana bar.
But if the laws are, as Knudsen has called them, “silly” and “ridiculous,” then “making sure they’re followed,” as he has also said, would literally make him a blind fool.
Post a Comment