Darrell Ehrlick, Daily Montanan

Montana Supreme Court strikes down trio of abortion bills as unconstitutional

by Darrell Ehrlick, Daily Montanan
June 11, 2025

A trio of abortion-related bills, passed in 2021, were declared unconstitutional by a nearly unanimous Montana Supreme Court on Monday.

Nearly, because Justice Jim Rice wrote both a concurring and dissenting opinion affirming again Montana’s constitutionally protected right-to-privacy, which includes medical procedures and abortion.

The laws were halted before they could even be practically enacted, so the hurdles to the procedure, including waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound, a pile of documentation and banning abortion after 20 weeks, even before the point of fetal viability, never rippled throughout the state.

Justice Beth Baker wrote the opinion on behalf of the court, which not only reaffirmed the state Constitution’s right-to-privacy as unique and separate from federal cases on abortion, but also took the state to task for failing to support its claim that the State of Montana had a compelling interest in abortion, while not proving that any of the legislative hurdles were scientifically supported.

The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood of Montana, and had a handful of other entities that wrote friends-of-the-court briefs, including a group of delegates to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention.

The three laws that were challenged were House Bill 136, House Bill 140 and House Bill 171:

• HB 136 would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, even though expert opinion agreed that fetal viability is not possible until at least 22 weeks.
• HB 171 would have put paperwork and more requirements for healthcare providers who provide abortion via medication or telehealth, subjecting them to both civil and criminal penalties.
• HB 180 would have required healthcare professionals to provide both ultrasound and fetal heartbeat tones to those considering abortion, and requiring a patient to sign a form created by the state, demonstrating that the patient had been offered the choice, and yet declined.

Because fetal viability — or the concept a child can survive outside the womb — is dictated by a host of factors, including medical science and approximate age of the fetus, the court rejected the state’s attempts to prescribe a fixed number of weeks for viability.

“A fixed gestational age that does not allow a provider’s case-specific determination fails to ensure that the government does not interfere with an individual’s private medical decision,” the ruling said. “Until a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb, the right of personal autonomy belongs to the person on whose body the fetus depends.

“We find no legal authority for the idea that the state’s interest in preserving fetal life or the fetus’ right to life takes precedence over all constitutional protections and dignities of the mother.”

Attorneys for the state had argued that physical safety risks of abortion increase as the pregnancy progresses, and that abortions lead to worse mental health outcomes, an argument that the Supreme Court dismissed and debunked.

“The record shows that abortion is safe,” the decision said. “As the district court noted, there were zero deaths cause by abortion in Montana between 2010 and 2020 and only 25 of 8,402 (0.3%) reported abortions in Montana from 2016 to 2021 resulted in complications. This court cannot find a bona fide health risk simply based on a detailed step-by-step description of what the state defines as ‘barbaric’ and ‘gruesome’ procedure when the overwhelming evidence shows that procedural abortions are safe.”

The ruling also said if the state wanted to address health outcomes or mental health issues, banning abortion was not the least restrictive way to do it.

The court also pointed out waiting-periods and requiring multiple in-person visits, as outlined by HB 171, actually increased the odds of harm or complications, instead of avoiding them.

“The record demonstrates that compliance with the 24-hour wait period, the multiple in-person visits, and the telehealth ban serve only to delay access to abortion care — thus increasing the odds that the patient will not be able to obtain an abortion or increasing the odds of the very complications this state asserts it wishes to protect against,” the opinion said.

The ruling also said in addition to violating the state’s constitutional provisions for privacy, it also impacted physician’s free-speech rights by requiring them to provide forms and documents, for example, information about a disputed abortion reversal procedure, that have not been medically verified or supported. They said HB 171 compelled healthcare professionals to give advice contrary to their training and conscience.

Physicians and experts also raised concerns about the state’s assertion abortion led to other health care concerns, for example, an increase in breast cancer, which has never been scientifically established.

“Forcing medical providers to give medical advice that they disagree with — like the safety and efficacy of abortion reversal — is a form of compelled-speech triggering protections,” the ruling said. “(Planned Parenthood) asserts that patients may mistakenly understand the consent form to indicate DPHHS’s and their provider’s approval of abortion reversal.”

The ruling calls such compelled speech egregious because it “favors one viewpoint over another — namely, the viewpoint that abortion reversal is safe and possible over the judgements and viewpoints of providers that it is unsafe, ineffective and undermines informed consent.”

The court noted the state does not mandate documentation or consent that requires medical providers to discuss the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Finally, the court also called into question the real purpose of HB 140, which mandates ultrasounds and fetal heart tones before an abortion, something that providers said either happens during the course of pregnancy, but may not be medically necessary.

“The court stated it was ‘left with the strong impression that the law aims to advance the ulterior motive of discouraging abortion,’ which is unacceptable under the law,” the ruling said.

Montana’s highest court found that in the case of HB 140, it was exactly substituting the judgment of the state, and the lawmakers who supported it, with the views of the doctor.

The case was active for several years of litigation, and had district court Judge Amy Eddy sitting in place of former Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who retired at the end of 2024, as well as Judge Shane Vannatta, who was sitting in for Dirk Sandefur, who also retired.

McGrath has since been replaced by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, and Sandefur was succeeded by Justice Katherine Bidegaray.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

by Darrell Ehrlick, Daily Montanan

February 10, 2025

Just a little more than 90 days ago, Montana voters soundly approved a state constitutional amendment that enshrined the right to an abortion in state law. A bill championed by Montana House Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, would essentially put the question again to voters in 2026, and many opponents told lawmakers they worried this new “fetal personhood” bill would go further than any other legislation in the country — and nullify Constitutional Initiative 128.

House Bill 316 would require two-thirds of the Legislature’s support in order to place the question before Montana residents. The bill would ask Montanans if they support a “personhood” amendment, which would confer rights to an embryo upon conception, essentially ruling out the use of in vitro fertilization or other methods without risking criminal penalties.

ALSO READ: Dems in disarray: Unforced error nixes Elon Musk subpoena — and sparks infighting

Others who testified at the House Judiciary Committee’s legislation last Wednesday also worried that the broad and vague language could wreak havoc because of unintended consequences, including end-of-life decisions, known as “advance care directives.”

In November 2024, Montana voters approved CI-128 by more than a 58% margin, which enshrines the constitutional right to an abortion and privacy in medical decisions. Abortion had been legal in Montana, supported by a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that found that Montanans’ right to an abortion is tied to the constitutional right to privacy in the Montana Constitution. However, CI-128 now guarantees the right to an abortion as a stand-alone right.

HB 316 was approved in committee along party lines, 12-to-8, and now heads to the full Montana House floor.

Deming acknowledged that Montanans recently approved CI-128, but likely didn’t understand that it would protect late-term abortions, something that Montana medical providers said do not happen in the state, and rarely happen, overwhelmingly because of medical complications.

He also told fellow lawmakers that if the thousands of abortions performed in the state had been illegal, maybe CI-128 wouldn’t have passed.

“If an amendment can take rights away — and this is a hypothetical, so please bear with me — why not use a bullet to kill all those people 70 or older? After all, they’re generally a drain on their families and society and some are inconvenient to have around. I see no material difference between that hypothetical and the thousands of abortions performed in Montana,” Deming said.

Through the testimony, many lawmakers and residents testified that the legislation would also mean halting IVF.

“My heart breaks for those who cannot conceive naturally,” Deming said. “If there was a way to accomplish it without killing so many human beings, but I don’t have the solution.”

Much of the testimony surround HB 316 fell along the debate lines of CI-128.

“Conception is not a theoretical or philosophical,” said Derek Oestreicher of the Montana Family Foundation. “It’s a scientifically verifiable event that begins at conception.”

Dr. Annie Bukacek, a medical professional who also sits on the Montana Public Service Commission, spoke in favor of the bill, and said it was right to target IVF.

“IVF is where untold human lives are destroyed to bring about one life, with enormous cash profits for individual clinics,” she said.

Resident Dick Pence testified that human species were the only animals who appear to do something other than protect their young.

“What other female animal on the plant wouldn’t give their life to protect their young? This is not true for the women who claim it is their right to choose,” Pence said. “The self-centeredness of those women.”

Ann Angus of Bozeman testified that she is expecting a child in June, thanks to IVF, and asked lawmakers to stop HB 316.

“I’ve always wanted kids, and I am pregnant thanks to IVF,” she said.

Unintended consequences

Residents also voiced concerns about some of the “unintended consequences” of the bill, including patients who developed complications or started to miscarry — or the medical providers who would have to attend to them. Some worried that, like in states that had passed similar legislation, Montana would lose medical providers. A shortage of medical providers is a perennial problem in the rural state.

Others worried that language in the bill that talked about “any stage of life” or condition would place advance directives, often used by older patients, many with terminal conditions, at risk. HB 316 also offers no “carve-outs” or protections in cases of rape or incest.

“It will drive healthcare providers out of state,” said Amber Nichols, who testified as a resident and scientist. “It will disregard the majority of voters have time and time again supported access to abortion in our state. It will signal to daughters, nieces, sisters, friends and neighbors that healthcare decisions are not theirs alone.”

Ella Smith, who spoke on behalf of Blue Mountain Clinic, one of the state’s healthcare providers that has managed abortions, said that “personhood” bills like Deming’s are no longer theoretical about consequences for healthcare providers.

“Doctors are being criminalized by not providing care in life-threatening situations,” she said.

She said that pregnancies can become emergencies quickly, but some providers have been unwilling to intervene until later, risking complications and even a death of a patient.

“We don’t have to guess what happens when laws like this exist — the evidence is all around us,” Smith said. “The sponsors of this legislation ignore the severe harm which they inflict. Women have died because they lived in a state with comparable laws to HB 316 exist.”

Elizabeth Brenneman from the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said she worried about pregnant women being criminalized under this law for using drugs or not seeking medical attention.

Other opponents pointed out that a similar measure to get the initiative before voters has failed three times during the signature-gathering process, as well as seven times at the Legislature.

Keegan Nashan of Livingston said she drove to places like Billings, Wibaux and even the Miles City Bucking Horse sale to gather signatures for CI-128. She said that while not all Montanans agreed with abortion, she kept on hearing the message over and over again.

“Ultimately, what is absolutely certain is that Montanans don’t think it’s any of the government’s business,” she said.

Robin Turner, the staff attorney at Legal Voice, said that beyond the challenges of abortion, IVF and healthcare access, she said the bill is problematic from a legal standpoint.

“It puts the pregnant person at odds with the fetus and diminishes the right of the pregnant person,” she said.

She told committee members that it’s unclear who gets to assert the rights of the fetus. Could an abusive spouse, grandparents, Child Protective Services or the police invoke the rights, she wondered.

“This would mean there’s no end to what the state can or can’t do,” Turner said. “Women deserve the final say in what they can do with their bodies and medical care.”

Martha Fuller, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, urged lawmakers to consider the fear such a law will create for pregnant women. She said women may delay seeking medical care, especially if they think they’ll be blamed for problems or accused of “self-managed abortions.”

“Anyone who has been pregnant knows there’s a long, often conflicting list of things that you should or shouldn’t do,” she said.

Fuller said that meanwhile, providers may be reluctant to act, for fear of being criminalized for doing the wrong thing.

“Actions often need to be taken quickly so the chilling effect of people seeking care for pregnancies they wanted and intended to keep could keep them from addressing complications and could be chilling or dangerous,” Fuller said.

Questions about application

While the topic of the bill was “personhood” and centered on pregnant women and fetuses, it often veered into other weighty topics, from slavery to theology.

Oestreicher said that before the Civil War, slaves were also not given personhood rights, and this bill would continue to guarantee that all people were afforded equal protection.

Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula, asked questions of Deming, especially how could the rights of the mother and the rights of the child be separated. For example, Howell questioned if a woman incarcerated for theft could use pregnancy as a means to escape criminal punishment because the food or care in prison or jail was inadequate.

“I’m concerned about how we really address full personhood,” Howell said. “How do we follow the law?”

Deming replied that his interest was in protecting life from conception to natural death.

“It would be two people under the bill, they just occupy the same space,” Deming said.

Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, who is both a trained rabbi and attorney, wondered if HB 316 stepped on his religious rights, because of differences centering on when the soul enters the body.

“Why should we enshrine your religious beliefs and exclude mine?” Stafman asked Deming.

“I didn’t mention religious rights,” Deming said. “I’m making a legal argument. I didn’t bring up religion. You were the one who brought that up.”

“Legally, then, when does the soul enter the body? Can you give me a legal argument?” he asked Deming.

“I think that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter when the soul enters the body. Of course it matters to you, and I as far as this goes. It’s not in the bill. It wasn’t brought up. It has nothing to do with this bill,” Deming replied.

Stafman took a different line of questioning.

“Twenty percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage. And if you’re saying that life begins at conception, and if 20% of them end in miscarriage, doesn’t that make God a mass murderer?” Stafman asked.

“I have to say that I object to that question,” Deming said. “And, no.”

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

However, an investigation by the Daily Montanan, reviewing those full recordings, show no evidence of the tapes being manipulated, and the quotes were accurately first reported by Char Koosta News, the official newspaper of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Moreover, Char Koosta last week released two previously unknown tapes of other events that demonstrates that Sheehy, who is challenging incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, made similar disparaging comments about Crow people.

Furthermore, a full review of all the recordings also demonstrates Sheehy repeating a debunked claim that doctors are allowed to kill infants after their born; that he wants to defund and eliminate several federal departments, and repeatedly calling into question Tester’s record helping veterans, referring to Tester as “Jabba the Hut.”

The Sheehy campaign did not respond to requests for interview or clarification about the comments.

The recordings of several Sheehy events were released by Char Koosta News after Sheehy told Fox News on Sept. 20 that the original tapes that were published by the outlet were “chopped up” and edited. The publication then released full recordings of the event, and included two others where Sheehy made similar comments about getting Coors Light beer cans thrown at his head while working on the southern Montana reservation, where Sheehy and business partner Turk Stovall have part of their ranching operation.

One of those recordings that was previously released shows Sheehy saying:

While Sheehy has largely been on the defensive after commenting on Native Americans, which has included a coalition of tribal organizations, the four recordings show a pattern of not only repeating that Crow tribal members pelt him with beer cans, but also demonstrate a pattern of repeating questionable or dubious claims about abortion, education and Tester, his opponent.

The tapes, published by Char Koosta, were from four public speaking events — Big Sky Motel in Superior on Sept. 18, 2023; Clark’s Family Restaurant in Shelby on Nov. 6, 2023; the Tri-County Republican Women’s Club Meeting in Helena on Nov. 9, 2023; and the Rodeo for State Sport fundraiser in Hamilton on Nov. 10, 2023.

Yet in the newly released tapes from an event in Superior, Sheehy appears to tell a similar story about getting beer cans thrown at him that hasn’t been reported:

“You want a tough crowd when you’re roping, go up to the Crow Reservation. You miss that double heel shoot and you get a Coors Light up side the head and a ‘Ha, white boy.’”

During another speech in Helena, Sheehy told the Republican Women’s Club:

“I rode on my horse through the Crow Reservation festival with Tim Sheehy signs strapped to me. One of our ranching operations are on the Crow Reservation, and I’m down there. I rope and brand my own cows, and I cut and bale my own hay. I’ll tell you if you don’t make that double heel shot on the Rez, the Coors Light cans hit you on the side of the head.”

As much as Sheehy told that story — twice as previously reported, and now on two other recordings — the GOP Senate candidate also said that more Native Americans should be voting Republican because the Democrats have failed tribal communities by letting drug cartels operate there. He characterized most Native Americans as conservative, pro-life, pro-guns and anti-crime.

“I’m on your reservation, and I care about your issues,” he said.

Sheehy on education

Several times in the recordings, Sheehy calls for defunding large portions of the federal government, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration as well as the federal Department of Education.

Sheehy said that he and his wife home-school their four children with an agriculture and faith-based curriculum.

“The Department of Education is an indoctrination factory to push out curriculum that parents don’t want,” he said.

He claimed during those speeches that part of public education was to confuse children about gender.

“Boys are girls and girls are boys in the legislature, thanks to our friend up there,” Sheehy said, making a likely reference to Montana Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first openly transgender woman to serve in the Montana Legislature. “It’s like Dr. Seuss.”

That was a message Sheehy repeated at a rodeo event in Hamilton where he said that children need to go to school “knowing boys are boys and girls are girls.”

Federal government

Sheehy during the speeches also outlines a broad, different vision for the federal government, starting with a civil service reform that echoed some of the points emphasized by the conservative and controversial “Project 2025,” authored by many former Trump administration officials.

Sheehy called for cuts to the federal government modeled after Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who he reportedly said cut 30% of the state government.

However, Sheehy said that the federal government was being destroyed by Democrats who are career bureaucrats and “hunker down” during Republican administrations. Sheehy supports a maximum of eight years for any federal government employee, and then suggests they return to the private sector.

“You can’t fire federal employees. You can’t dock their pay. The way you used to get rid of them was by saying, ‘Hey guess what? Your new duty station just got moved to Fairbanks, Alaska,’” he said. “And by definition, if you can’t fire someone, they don’t work for you, you work for them.”

At a speech in Helena, he said the problem with the federal government is “permanent bureaucrats.”

“They need to retire and go away,” Sheehy said. “They need to be replaced by real Americans who understand what Americans do every day.”

Sheehy said much of the problem with the federal government stems from its location in Washington, D.C. He repeatedly called for moving federal agencies away from the Capitol, not unlike the failed plan to the move the U.S. Department of the Interior to Colorado during the Trump administration.

He suggested the United States Department of Agriculture be located to Iowa, near cornfields and that the United States Forest Service should be in some place like Missoula. He suggested the Federal Aviation Administration should move to Oklahoma City.

“We need to return competency to those industries they’re required to regulate,” he said. “Most have never seen a forest, never seen a cornstalk, driven a combine or flown an airplane, and they’re telling us how to run our government.”

Sheehy has also come under fire for his work with the Property and Environmental Research Center, a think tank on which he previously served as a board member. That organization has advocated for private management of public and federal lands. Sheehy has been accused of wanting to privatize public lands, much of which are in large western states like Montana. At his speech in Shelby, Sheehy seemed to advocate for a similar position.

“The federal government has managed government lands for far too long, and when the federal government manages lands, things just don’t go well,” Sheehy said, “that’s the simple truth.”

Sheehy was also asked a question about his company, Bridger Aerospace, taking a PPP loan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sheehy defended taking the forgivable loan, saying that the U.S. Forest Service shut down his operations, and that during the pandemic, the company did not lay off any employee or dock pay.

Instead, Sheehy said he spent the pandemic hiding under a bed “with a diaper on my face.”

Reproductive freedom

Sheehy admitted that Democrats are beating Republicans at the “ground game” on the subject of abortion. He repeated in several of the forums that it was legal to kill infants after an abortion, after they’re born, a claim that has been forwarded by presidential candidate Donald Trump, and repeatedly debunked.

He said that the Republican Party must do more to woo young, female voters. He characterized females less than the age of 25 as “indoctrinated” and “single-issue” voters.

“Murder is the official position of the American Democratic Party,” Sheehy said.

Voting reforms

Sheehy has been urging voters to send ballots in early, and advocated for overhauling the election system, calling for paper ballots and Election Day voting.

During those speeches, he stopped short of saying the 2020 election was fraudulent or rigged, instead saying that Republicans must expand their party tent and get younger people involved, including welcoming those who may not agree on every point.

However, he did call repeatedly for voter identification laws, voting on paper ballots and voting on Election Day.

“The Democrats will use every trick possible,” he said.

Sheehy recounted how he helped Iraq conduct the first open, free elections and did it through paper ballots and a blue ink that stained fingers to show proof of voting.

“I do not believe in electronic voting machines,” he said. “A No. 2 pencil and a piece of paper sounds pretty good to me.”

He also characterized America’s voting infrastructure as “fancy Chinese machines.”

Jon Tester

Repeatedly, Sheehy takes after Tester’s record, calling him a “dyed in the wool Socialist.” In the speeches, he reminds the crowd that he’s a decorated combat veteran and said his goal was to capture the veterans’ vote.

“(Tester)’s never signed the front of the paycheck. He’s hoodwinked the veterans of this state,” Sheehy said, then changing his voice, “I’m the head of the VA committee and I have this stupid flat-top.

Several times when speaking about Tester, Sheehy took shots at the flat-top haircut Tester has had since his childhood.

He said that Tester, as the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, in Congress is responsible for the failures of the VA, while at the same time, accused Tester of plopping down VA clinics across Montana in an attempt to appease the veteran community.

“He puts on a jacket and waddles around like he cares,” Sheehy said of Tester.

He accused the three-term Senator of lying to veterans’ face, and said the only thing that has been successful while Tester has sat as the leader of the Senate’s VA committee is that more VA employees have unionized.

“He’s accountable for a record number of veteran suicides,” Sheehy said. “He’s accountable for the dysfunction of Veterans Affairs and let’s hold him accountable by sending him home.”

Tester has been a strong advocate for the veterans community, including his bipartisan effort to get the PACT Act which he co-sponsored with U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas. That extended benefits to veterans who were the victims of toxic chemical exposure and “burn pits” and the cancers and neurological diseases associated with handling the materials. In August, the federal government reported that more than 1 million veterans were getting benefits through that legislation.

“I’m a war hero, a job creator and a philanthropist,” Sheehy said. “Those are three things that Jon Tester can’t say.”

He also blamed the Democrats for “destroying our culture and violating the Constitution.”

However, he said that Democrats were also doing a better job courting young voters, and that the GOP must work to invigorate young voters.

“We all want a culturally pure warrior to take the field of battle, but we’re going to lose every time so we have to have a message and a message that most Americans can get behind,” Sheehy said. “We have to stop this grievance and talking about the past or else we’re going to lose young voters.”

A candidate for the Montana House of Representatives and a post-doctoral fellow at Montana Technical University in Butte has been reappointed to his position with the public university, even amid a request for an investigation by the state’s largest human rights organization because of concerns that he is an avowed white supremacist and neo-Nazi.

The Daily Montanan requested and received the letter appointing Trenin Bayless through the end of 2024 as a post-doctoral researcher who will work with students, something that specifically concerned the Montana Human Rights Network, which provided a detailed dossier of social media activities and posts attributed to Bayless. MHRN provided that dossier to the university system as well as the Daily Montanan.

The Montana Human Rights Network had earlier in the summer asked the Board of Regents of the Montana University System, which has oversight of all public colleges and universities in the state, including Montana Tech, to investigate the claims and, at a minimum, eliminate contact Bayless has with students.

In previous interviews with Bayless, he has denied the connections that were first uncovered by FashFreeNW, a research organization that tracks, documents and publicly identifies white nationalists, supremacists, neo-Nazis and other radical groups in the northwest.

“I’m not that,” Bayless told the Daily Montanan in July, calling the accusations “nonsense.”

However, in that same interview, Bayless declined to elaborate on his views, political or otherwise, saying that they could be misconstrued in a lawsuit he said he was planning against the Montana Human Rights Network.

Bayless, a Republican, will appear on the ballot in a race in House District 74, which covers Butte. His challenger is Democrat Marc Lee.

Previous calls to the Montana Republican Party went unreturned, and requests for any statement about Bayless’ candidacy have also gone unanswered.

Montana Human Rights Network executive director Niki Zupanic said she’s heard nothing from Bayless or attorneys since the organization went public with its concerns.

However, after months of not hearing anything from the university system, Montana Human Rights Network reached out again to ask about the progress of the case and any information on the outcome. The Daily Montanan did the same, and university officials responded with a brief acknowledgment that they had received the complaint, but nothing about what actions, if any, the university took.

“We share your interest in ensuring that Montana Tech is a place to learn and work free from discrimination. We strive to provide an environment that is free from harassment and discrimination, while honoring the constitutional principles of free speech,” said the letter, signed by Vanessa Van Dyk, Montana Tech’s head of human resources, which includes Title IX.

It also encouraged any student who has felt they’ve been discriminated against to file a complaint, and included a link to an online form.

Officials at the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education in Montana did not respond to a list of questions from the Daily Montanan, instead only provided the letter, dated Sept.10. MHRN said that’s the only correspondence between the university system and the human rights organization it has received. The letter came one day after the Daily Montanan had requested follow-up information. The Montana Human Rights Network had originally sent its concerns to the Board of Regents and the Commissioner’s Office on July 1, only to hear nothing in the intervening months.

It also appears that Montana Tech Chancellor Les Cook re-appointed Bayless to his position, which pays an annual contract salary of $60,240, after the concerns of the Montana Human Rights Network had been brought to light. The original story concerning Bayless’ activity first appeared on July 11, and the appointment letter is dated July 24. Bayless accepted it the next day, July 25.

The appointment outlines the various duties and terms, including that his end date is Dec. 31, 2024, not June 30, 2025, like most contracts, which follow the school year. It is not a tenure-track role and is dependent upon funding from outside research sources. Bayless’ duties include “help(ing) the students with characterization and analysis as needed.” It includes advising or working with four graduate students, whose names are redacted. He will work as a post-doc in the Army Research Laboratory.

Also as part of the appointment process, Bayless had to sign off that he is subject to “all institutional policies and procedures governing the conduct of employees.” This would include the university system’s institutional policies against discrimination.

Leaders at the Montana Human Rights Network said they were doubly disappointed by the tardy response and inaction of the university system.

The university system has also repeatedly refused to outline or discuss what processes the system or Montana Tech took to either investigate the concerns or even exonerate Bayless.

“Why wasn’t there even a response? What was it doing?” asked Zupanic.

In an ideal world, Zupanic said she would have hoped that the university would have acknowledged a complaint and then provided assurances that Bayless would not have contact with students. Zupanic also said that the Montana Human Rights Network was not necessarily calling for him to be unemployed, just not exposed to students.

“We think he has the right to free speech, and we believe in protecting that,” Zupanic said. “But this type of speech has a detrimental impact, and we want to make sure he’s not in a position to impact negatively the students.”

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and X.

Nine states, including Montana, are challenging an executive order by President Joe Biden that would enlist federal agencies to help register residents to vote, and those states say the order undermines their power to control elections, calling it federally subsidized program aimed at boosting Democratic and left-leaning blocs.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen filed the federal lawsuit in court in Wichita, Kansas. The nine states are Montana, Kansas, Iowa, South Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

The heart of the lawsuit is Executive Order 14019, which was issued on March 10, 2021.

The states challenging the executive order say that Biden converts various federal agencies, turning them in part into “a voter registration organization” illegally. The attorneys general say that elections, including voter registration, are solely the province of states, guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Moreover, the states said that it’s an example of the federal government trying to usurp the sovereignty of the states, and giving the states no other choice than to resort to federal court. The lawsuit said the states were never invited into the process, never allowed to comment, and they accuse the Biden administration of hiding the plans.

“In response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the Biden-Harris Administration has asserted the plans are subject to privilege and may be withheld from public scrutiny,” the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit lists a number of federal agencies as defendants, including the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of The Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Education.

The lawsuit also claims that the National Voter Registration Act means that federal agencies cannot stand in the way of citizens voting, but it also said that voter registration activity is left to the states, and Biden’s order oversteps its authority.

The 41-page suit outlines a number of ways the executive order commands the federal agencies to help bolster the efforts to register voters, for example:

The suit accuses the Department of Justice of providing information to those who remain eligible to vote while in federal custody, as well as preparing prisoners about voting laws and rights before reentry.It says that the Department of the Interior will disseminate information about registering and voting at schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education and tribal colleges and universities.The order also encourages the Department of Agriculture to provide nonpartisan voter information through its borrowers and lenders about registration and voting.Designating 2,400 American Job Centers, which provide employment guidance, training and career services, to become voter registration agencies under the National Voter Registration Act.Allowing public housing community areas space for certain election-related activities, including voter registration or voter drop boxes for early voting.The lawsuit said that the order allows the Department of Education to allow federal work study funds to “support voter registration” activities.

“There is little detail about how agencies determine whether a third-party organization is ‘approved,’ ‘non-partisan,’ or what third-party organizations an agency can work with to promote voter registration,” the lawsuit said. “A rule that permits federal agencies to engage in voter registration activities trenches on States’ constitutionally protected sovereign rights.”

From a practical standpoint, the states claim that the federal government’s executive order doesn’t just exceed the constitution, but could threaten efforts in the individual states.

“The vast resources of the federal government render it unique among all possible entities engaged in voter registration. Because of the resources it can bring to bear, the federal government can engage in voter registration activities on a scale that will, as a practical matter, swamp any state’s attempt to regulate the government’s actions,” the lawsuit said.

Knudsen, Montana’s Attorney General, echoed that sentiment when he announced the lawsuit from Helena on Tuesday.

“Fair elections are an essential part of our country’s republic. Congress gave the states the power to oversee elections years ago,” Knudsen said. “I will not stand by while the Biden-Harris administration attempts to shamelessly garner votes by employing its own agencies to register voters and disregard states’ own voter registration systems, putting the integrity of our elections at risk.”

The states also said that encouraging a variety of different agencies without proper training put the elections at risk of fraud.

“They failed to consider the risk of fraud or to implement actions to prevent fraud, which threatens the integrity of state administration of elections,” the states said. “This includes, at a minimum, ensuring that illegal aliens do not register to vote through the plans the agency defendants put in place.”

It is already against federal law for non-citizens to vote in elections.

The states conclude the lawsuit by saying that the plans in the executive order weren’t motivated to help resident register to vote, rather they are part of a Democrat plan.

“(The executive order) was motivated by a partisan desire to unfairly increase the Democrat vote as shown by the fact that the order came from left-wing, progressive groups,” the suit claims. “The purpose is to promote left-wing politicians and policies at elections.”

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and X.

First it was former President and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Then, it was U.S. Senate Candidate Tim Sheehy, Montana’s Republican challenger to incumbent Jon Tester.

Now, it appears that Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte has jumped on the disinformation bandwagon of babies being aborted up to the moment of birth in the Treasure State.

In the battle that has been fought since the United States Supreme Court changed direction in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health decision, which sent the subject of abortion back to the individual states, reproductive rights has taken center stage as a topic across the U.S.

The national discussion has also centered on a repeatedly debunked claim that Democrats support abortion up until the moment of birth and even after birth, which would be infanticide, or murder of child, something outlawed in all 50 states.

“They will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth,” Trump said.

The former GOP president has made claims like that on at least several occasions, but the talking point has been picked up and repeated in Montana.

Sheehy said something similar recently at a June 8 Senate debate, according to KFF Health News: “Elective abortions up to and including the moment of birth. Healthy, 9-month-year-old baby killed at the moment of birth. That’s what Jon Tester and the Democrats have voted for.”

KFF Health News’ Matt Volz fact-checked Sheehy on that statement and found it false, according to a joint investigation with PolitiFact.

But Montana’s governor, also up for re-election this year and facing Democratic challenger Ryan Busse, has taken to talk radio to repeat the disinformation.

On July 17 during radio program “Talk Back Missoula,” Gianforte described a constitutional ballot measure that would enshrine reproductive rights and abortion until the point of fetal viability as a measure that would allow abortion through the moment of birth.

“A pro-abortion ballot initiative that would basically put in the Montana Constitution the right to abortion up through and including the moment of birth. It’s a bad idea,” Gianforte said.

Martha Fuller, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood Montana, and one of the groups involved in the constitutional measure through the group, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, called the statement “absolutely disinformation.”

“His statement is absolutely false and it’s shameful that they’re lying to Montana,” Fuller said.

Constitutional Initiative 128, which will be on the ballot before Montana voters, reads:

In an interview the next day on the radio program “Montana Talks,” Gianforte doubled down on his statement, calling CI-128 a “deceptively written abortion initiative,” and claimed that Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan had illegally ordered the Secretary of State to count signatures because the judge “(doesn’t) care what the law is.”

The Montana Supreme Court refused an emergency appeal request to take over the case or overturn Menahan’s order that inactive voters were still qualified to sign a petition to place the issue on November’s ballot.

Gianforte’s office did not respond or give answers to questions about this story from the Daily Montanan.

Fuller says that while abortion is legal in Montana, through a 25-year-old precedent, Armstrong vs. State of Montana, CI-128 would simply codify into the constitution what is already in practice through the ruling. She said with the repeated legislation passed during the previous two sessions, and the increasing politicization of the state Supreme Court, she said it’s important for Montanans to place CI-128 in the Montana Constitution in order to stop politicians from changing abortion or reproductive rights at the state level.

However, Fuller also said that the wording of the initiative was specifically written to emphasize that abortion would be guaranteed only until “fetal viability,” unless there is a medically necessary reason.

“We don’t need to make up things to get interest on voting on this or the ballot,” Fuller said.

More than 80% of abortions in Montana are medication abortions, or abortions that terminate a pregnancy by a combination of drugs. Those abortions happen before the 11th week of pregnancy. From 12 to 16 weeks, the number of abortions, which are surgical, get smaller and smaller.

She said Montana medical providers who perform abortion don’t handle any person beyond the 22nd week, or into the third trimester. And those cases almost always involve a life-threatening emergency for the mother, or a fatal medical condition for the fetus.

“These are medical situations that should not be politicized,” Fuller said. “They are difficult and unthinkable situations where someone’s life is at risk. Thank goodness they are rare, but in those cases, abortion needs to be an option. These are people who have bought baby clothes, prepared a nursery and wanted a pregnancy. Using their pain and stories to support a false narrative is shameful.”

Fuller said she and her organization have heard the same comments and get questions about late-term abortions. But, she said the doctors and medical care providers who work in reproductive health have an ethical and legal obligation to save life, making killing an infant not just unethical but illegal.

“They’re governed by ethical and professional obligations as doctors,” Fuller said, “and they’re humans. What we’re talking about is a crime. And that’s another issue.”

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and X.

Montana’s senior U.S. senator and only Democratic member of the Congressional delegation is calling on President Joe Biden, also a Democrat, to not seek re-election in November.

Tester is only the second Democrat in the Senate to make the call on the Biden candidacy, but other media report that former President Barack Obama, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, have visited with Biden recently, privately asking him to reconsider his decision to stay in the race.

“Montanans have put their trust in me to do what is right, and it is a responsibility I take seriously. I have worked with President Biden when it has made Montana stronger, and I’ve never been afraid to stand up to him when he is wrong,” Tester said. “And while I appreciate his commitment to public service and our country, I believe President Biden should not seek re-election to another term.”

Only Vermont’s Sen. Peter Welch, a fellow Democrat in the Senate, has publicly called for Biden not to seek re-election.

Tester said that Biden should continue to finish out his current term, which ends in January 2025, despite some calls from pundits and politicians for him to exit early in order to give Vice President Kamala Harris better exposure.

Tester supports an open nominating process to select a nominee from the Democratic Party.

On Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California who is running for a U.S. Senate seat there, also called on Biden to not seek re-election, becoming one of the most prominent members of the House Democrats to call for him to step aside. Schiff is perhaps best known as one of the chief members on the January 6th committee.

Tester is running for re-election this November to keep his Senate seat against political neophyte Tim Sheehy, a Bozeman Republican businessman and former soldier, hand-picked by Montana’s other senator, Steve Daines, who leads the Republican effort to flip the United States Senate back to GOP control.

Despite what many polls and analysts consider a tight race in Montana, which has swung to the right in recent elections, Tester has a track record of winning close competitions. In fact, former President Donald J. Trump came to Montana on three different occasions during Tester’s last re-election bid, something that could have doomed other Democrats in red states. However, Tester remains one of the few politicians to survive such a frontal political assault.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Biden cancelled a speaking event in Las Vegas when he was diagnosed with COVID-19. It is the second time Biden has gotten COVID-19, and video of the president walking gingerly up the stairs of Air Force One was aired on television and social media. The positive COVID test came on the heels of several notable gaffes and other problems, most prominently, a disastrous television debate on CNN on June 27 in which Biden appeared rattled and at times was hard to follow.

That began what became a growing chorus of people calling on the 81-year-old president to step aside.

Tester deserves to give the Dems a taste of their own medicine

Like almost every member of Congress, Tester was asked about his opinion of Biden’s chances of success after the debate, to which he replied that the president “has got to prove to the American people — including me — that he’s up to the job for another four years,” according to media reports.

Even after the debate, the polls showed little change, possibly suggesting an entrenched electorate. A National Public Radio/Marist/PBS News poll that was released last week shows Biden and Trump in a statistical tie in nationwide results.

Biden deciding not to seek another term would trigger states to lean on their own laws for what happens to replace a presidential candidate on the ballot. Those procedures widely vary state-by-state.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and X.

The Montana Human Rights Network is calling on the Montana University System to fire a Montana Tech postdoctoral fellow it says is a prolific white nationalist running for the Legislature, who espouses a wide variety of views, ranging from exterminating Jews and members of the LGBTQ+ community, to learning how to suture a wound for an upcoming collapse of society.

Trenin Bayless lives in Butte, teaches at Montana Tech, and is running as a Republican for the Montana Legislature in a reliably Democratic district. He formerly worked at the Montana Office of Public Instruction, ran for the city-county commission in Butte-Silver Bow, and is accused of championing a social theory known as “accelerationism.”

Bayless said he’s seen the report produced by Fash Free NW, a blog dedicated to unmasking white nationalists, neo-Nazis and those who espouse racist views. He’s said he’s heard the concerns. He repeatedly denied that he’s the person behind the posts, and said he’s considering filing a lawsuit against the Montana Human Rights Network.

“I’m not that,” Bayless told the Daily Montanan, calling the accusation “nonsense.”

MHRN Executive Director Niki Zupanic, herself an attorney, said the group is confident that while no author name has ever been disclosed on those social media accounts, the author of the posts has dropped enough clues for investigators to identify Bayless.

“Unfortunately and maybe unsurprisingly, people who espouse white supremacist views understand that their beliefs are in conflict, especially as a member of an academic institution,” Zupanic said.

She said it’s not surprising that they hide behind a cloak of pen names and multiple identities because it could jeopardize their employment.

Bayless is also running for a seat in the Montana House of Representatives as a Republican in House District 74.

The Montana Republican Party was contacted on at least three different occasions during the past two weeks as the Daily Montanan was working on this story, including providing materials on Bayless.

It never responded to any of those requests for interview or comment.

Bayless, who is making his second attempt at politics (his first was in Silver Bow County), said he was not interested in running for political office, but wanted to help the Republicans fill out the ballot. He said he acknowledges a Republican in the traditionally Democratic stronghold of Butte is a long shot.

He said he denied all allegations, but when asked how two organizations could conclude publicly that he was behind the writings and postings, plus some photographs, Bayless said he couldn’t comment further because he may file a lawsuit in the future.

“I am not going to comment on it,” Bayless said. “When things get legal, and they might, they get weird. And sometimes lawyers get uppity about speaking to the media.”

In the same interview, he denied being a white nationalist and white supremacist, calling the allegations “childish.” When asked to explain his outlook on racism in America, neo-Nazis or other races, Bayless declined to give specific answers.

“My position is that I am not a white nationalist or white supremacist,” he said. He did characterize his political views as “right of center” without detailing any position. He said his interracial marriage should be enough to discredit any hypothesis that he’s behind the social media accounts. Furthermore, he said that he’s working with five students from Ghana, which should also help bolster the claim that he’s not the person in the post.

“What I am trying to do is help these grad students get graduated. I work with a diverse group of students. Clearly, they’re trying to impact my career, which is not good for these students. I think they got it wrong,” Bayless said.

He likened the Montana Human Rights Network to a bunch of high school bullies and said it’s a lot like trying to pin a scarlet letter to him in order to invalidate a political candidate.

Instead, he said his candidacy for the Montana House is focused on issues that Montanans care about, like housing and property taxes.

“There are major issues in the system at this time. Both Donald Trump and Biden are extremely old and should have let go a long time ago,” Bayless said. “The older generations are very afraid of their own experiences in the 1970s and 1980s and so it descends into name-calling on both sides. I am really not that interested in it.”

The Montana Human Rights Network also sent a letter on July 1 to Montana Tech, as well as the same email to the members of the Board of Regents, which has supervision over the Montana University System, of which Montana Tech is a part.

In the letter sent by the Human Rights Network, the group asks Montana Tech to terminate Bayless’ employment, making a statement reaffirming its commitment to the values of diversity, equity and academic freedom, as well as condemning “the destructive and hateful beliefs espoused by white nationalists.”

To date, the university system has taken no action on Bayless’ employment.

“Our biggest concern is that he uses his position of power over students at Montana Tech, especially graduate students, to indoctrinate them into his white nationalist beliefs,” the letter said. “Allowing an avowed white nationalist to remain in a position of influence within the academic community not only undermines the safety and well-being of students and faculty but also tarnishes the reputation of Montana Tech as a beacon of learning and integrity.”

Galen Hollenbaugh, the deputy commissioner of government relations and communications for the Montana University System, confirmed leaders at Montana Tech and the system office in Helena are looking into the allegations, but declined to outline what actions it was taking.

“The Montana University System is committed to protecting both individual rights and campus safety,” Hollenbaugh said in an email. “We carefully balance free speech protections with our responsibility to provide a nondiscriminatory education and work environment.”

‘TurnCoat’ and the coming collapse

The posts and the document that Fash Free NW has prepared, which runs 77 pages when printed out, as well as an abbreviated version that the Montana Human Rights Network produced, chronicles the different social media accounts they say are controlled and mask the identity of Bayless.

Those reports detail a person, often going by the social media handle of “TurnCoat,” who identifies as a person with a doctorate, living in Montana, and working toward a societal collapse.

The writings of “TurnCoat” are extensive and often articulate, being authored for online magazines and white nationalist publishing houses. “TurnCoat” appears to advocate for a theory espoused by some white nationalists as “acceleration theory.” The basic idea is that followers of it believe that the American Republic has been so corrupted by a variety of elements, including different races, religions and sexual identities, that it is beyond redemption or fixing. Instead, accelerationists believe that they should hasten the inevitable collapse of society, creating an opening for a white, Christian homeland with rewritten rules of society.

Devin Burghart is the president of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. He is a prolific researcher and a national expert on extremist groups and nationalist movements. He said that while a lot of the public may not know about “accelerationism,” they may understand the concept of provoking a race war.

Along the way, the social media accounts tied to Bayless seem full of “live-action roleplaying” or LARPing, in which masked members practice warfare tactics with the heavy use of firearms, preparing for the coming collapse.

The writings attributed to Bayless also are far-reaching, with the author urging fellow white nationalists and neo-Nazis to infiltrate all levels of society in a cell-like organization not unlike the terrorist sleeper cells of the 1990s where no one group is in control, but these various groups of similarly-minded people could be activated when the time is right. The author believed to be Bayless calls for a network of “small high-trust groups.”

“There is no single point of failure and a number of national networks (whom I will not name specifically) have successfully utilized these strategies to commit to boots-on-the-ground action,” the author believed to be Bayless said.

The posts attributed to Bayless urge followers to be ready to seize upon the “coming political instability,” which will lead to positions of power and leadership.

The author of those posts calls for white nationalists to target places, like law enforcement, academia and other professions to create these loosely affiliated groups.

Fash Free NW’s lengthy investigation of Bayless documents accounts identified as his on social media platform Gab, Dissenter, Poast, Rumble and Telegram.

Prolific writing

A group of anti-fascist researchers who contributed to the report said it has been watching Bayless since his student days at the University of Montana. They’ve identified another social media account tied to “TurnCoat” under the name Dr. Kurtis MacDaud, who, among other things espouses particular virulent anti-Semitic posts, including calling on society to “remove the Jew.” The account also calls for the “political left” to be removed from society because they are “evil psychopaths.” And the same account refers to Black people as “nigs.”

The investigation into Bayless also shows the accounts are tied to the Montana chapter of White Lives Matter. “TurnCoat” also describes himself as an author of articles, short fiction and book reviews, as well as a wishing Third Reich leader Adolf Hitler a happy birthday.

Fash Free and the Montana Human Rights Network said they used Bayless’ prolific use of social media to link the accounts together, including one on Facebook, where “Kurt Barthalemu” uses the same photos, as well as photos that show Bayless and reference him by name.

Many of the writings are also targeted at the LGBTQ+ community, where the author believed to be Bayless appears to blame the “problem” of gay people on giving the women the right to vote, saying that that created men who were forced to either be gay or hyper-masculine Nazis.

In 2019, under pressure from Congress and other leaders, social media companies started to de-platform neo-Nazi and other violent rhetoric. “TurnCoat” responded: “Violence is the only solution. Dehumanize yourself and face it…Do what must be done.”

The same author also called for all “faggots” to be killed, referencing the Holocaust: “Warm up the ovens.”

On YouTube, Fash Free and Montana Human Rights Network chronicle YouTube accounts tied to Bayless, “focused on simulating real-life, post-apocalyptic survival and war scenarios.”

The groups connect Bayless to an author “Turn King,” which writes for The American Futurist, an online publication dedicated to neo-Nazi views and whose leaders have been arrested and charged for domestic terrorism. They were part of a militant terrorist organization, Atomwaffen Division. Burghart notes that some of the people affiliated with The American Futurist and the Atomwaffen Division have been convicted of murder plots and terrorist plans to blow up parts of the power grid.

“These kinds of folks are the worst of the worst we track,” Burghart said.

Some of those articles call for neo-Nazis to organize for action in local places, and others detail plans of infiltrating conservative organizations and the Republican Party to replace the traditional groups with their own members. “Turn King” also details his desire to run for local office.

In one post he describes “the quiet pushing of like-minded people into positions of power.”

“If possible, run for a seat,” Turn King said in an article in 2022. “Your entire group doesn’t need to run for an office, just one is enough to get a foot in the door.”

The author believed to be Bayless goes on to state that after a collapse of society, more local authorities will have more power because of the chaos of collapse, and that’s how the small “high-trust groups” can achieve power.

“Trenin Bayless is emblematic of a dangerous subset of the white nationalist movement that sees political violence and chaos as a solution to the problems they see,” Burghart said. “It should be taken very seriously by everyone.”

Connecting the dots

But the accounts experts associate with Bayless show more than just posting screeds and treatises on various social media platforms, they also claim that there’s action happening in Montana. The accounts speak of plans for meetings and conferences where the like-minded congregate.

The author urges people to arm themselves, train in chemistry, camping, practice shooting and radio communication.

“If you can find it, look for the Taliban Manuals and their explosives Manual (I know these exist, if you can find them let me know),” said the author believed to be Bayless. “Learn how to suture an injury. As medical costs keep going up, understanding basic medical practices will become an actual life-saving skill.”

However, one of the keys to unmasking Bayless’ online identity, according to Fash Free, was at one of those in-person meetings. Montana neo-Nazi Andrew Salacinski, who was confined to parole in Butte, spoke on social media of meeting “TurnCoat” there, where they both lived. Salacinski turned on Bayless, calling him a “race traitor” because Bayless is married to a woman of Asian descent and has a child of mixed race.

“Trenin Bayless’ wife shares an alias with TurnCoat’s Alt,” the report from Fash Free said. “In Bayless’ thesis, he thanks his wife, mentioning her by both her legal name and her alias. In a stunning coincidence, his wife was found to go by the same last name that TurnCoat did on his Dissenter profile: MacSidhe.”

Investigators started researching Bayless’ wife, Shin Sun, who goes by the alias “Sunia MacSidhe,” and appears to participate in many of Bayless’ live-action role playing, which ultimately helped tie the two together photographically, according to the extensive Fash Free NW report.

“TurnCoat” and Bayless also happen to drive the same two vehicles — a black Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and a blue Yamaha XVS V-Star 1100 motorcycle, both of which were photographed parked outside Bayless’ house.

What to do

Zupanic said that in addition to the Human Rights Network calling on leaders in higher education to address the situation, she said the purpose of publicly calling out Bayless is to educate the public about extremism in the state.

She recommends reading up on reporting about neo-Nazi, Christian nationalism and white supremacists so that residents can spot it. She told the Daily Montanan that social media coupled with a younger generation of militant groups has changed the tactics that people are used to — from white robes and hoods a century ago to live-action role-playing and manuals on military survival.

Burghart said it’s essential for voters to know who is running for public office and what they stand for. He first started researching David Duke’s campaign in Louisiana. Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who rose to prominence, used the veneer of politics as a way to mainstream bigoted views.

“This gives Bayless the attention he rightly deserves, and that’s essential,” Burghart said. “I’d like to see more of this reporting.”

Burghart said it’s not surprising that Bayless would deny his connection, nor is he surprised that he mentioned the threat of suing Montana Human Rights Network.

“That’s a very common thing to deny the allegations even when faced with insurmountable evidence,” Burghart said. “We’ve heard that and it’s never come to fruition.”

Burghart said that’s because many of these groups thrive on anonymity and darkness. He said the “sunlight” of public scrutiny is one of the important ways community can react.

The Bard Center for the Study of Hate, along with the Montana Human Rights Network, have published a lengthy guide on how to combat hate in local communities. That can be found here.

She said that public pressure is also effective because leaders in the community, education and politics can help denounce the actions.

“We would champion free speech, but not the right to indoctrinate or harm his students,” Zupanic said. “The state is responsible for taking steps to ensure that its employees and students are treated with care and respect.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and X.

Another notable Montana leader has joined a group of retired state Supreme Court justices throughout the country to urge the United States Supreme Court to uphold the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disallow former President Donald J. Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the 2024 ballot.

Retired Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson has joined with six other retired justices in an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief, saying that state courts have been determining eligibility of candidates since America was founded, and that the court in Colorado was merely exercising its proper role.

Nelson, who served on the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 to 2013, is one of several Montanans who have weighed in with the brief at the high court. Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, a Republican, joined with other former GOP governors to urge the Supreme Court to reject Trump on the ballot. Meanwhile Sen. Steve Daines, as the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee filed a brief in support of keeping Trump on the ballot as did Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who joined with 16 other states attorneys general. Daines and Knudsen are also Republicans.

The 30-page brief, filed on Wednesday, said that states routinely interpret the United States Constitution to ensure federal candidates are eligible to run for office.

While Trump’s supporters have said that only Congress has the power to decide whether the former president is guilty of insurrection according to the 14th Amendment, the former justices, through their attorneys, argue that the Constitution does not mandate that Congress acts first before a state court declares a presidential candidate ineligible.

“Except where Congress grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction, state courts must apply and enforce federal constitutional provisions when properly invoked under state law,” the brief said.

For example, the justices said that state courts are called upon to routinely interpret the due process and equal protection clauses, so states should be able to interpret the other clauses, like the insurrection clause.

“The Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalizes these protections precisely so they do not depend on the whims of Congress,” the brief said.

Instead, the former high court officials said that the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to remove disqualifications — for example, insurrection — and could do so in the case of Trump, but they said that would take two-thirds of both chambers of Congress.

“States cannot add to the constitutional qualifications for presidents, but this case does not involve an additional qualification — it involves a qualification from the Constitution itself,” they argue.

They also argue that different states have different requirements for electors who participate in the electoral college. Some states allow electors to be split. Other states require electors to be “bound” to a certain candidate, while others do not. The brief argues that this latitude has been historically permissible, and allows states power to determine how leaders, including the President, are chosen.

Other briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court have argued that the term “insurrection,” and what qualifies is vaguely defined, and too imprecise, which could lead to different courts making different determinations both now and in the future about what qualifies. However, the justices said that courts are the proper place to define those larger terms, and they’re called upon to interpret them routinely.

“Interpreting constitutional text and applying that text to (sometimes disputed) facts is precisely what courts do,” the brief said. “Like ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ the meanings of ‘engage’ and ‘insurrection’ are judicially discoverable. Indeed, the terms ‘insurrection’ and ‘engage’ are more clearly defined than terms like ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection.’”

The justices suggest that the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, to remove a disqualification, but it has not done so. In their court filing, they said that Trump’s lawyers have turned the amendment on its head so as to mean Congress can only act after a person is elected to office.

“Until (Congress acts), he remains disqualified, and this court — bound by the Constitution’s plain text and original public meaning — cannot indulge such politics. Failing to enforce Section 3 out of fear Trump and his supporters’ reactions would prostrate the Constitution before a mob,” it said. “Conversely, allowing Trump to appear on ballots despite his disqualification would avoid neither nor further insurrection. It would convey that our Constitution does not apply to individuals who threaten it, precisely because they threaten it.”

Editor’s note: Nelson’s columns are regularly published by the Daily Montanan.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and Twitter.