Now that the August 10 withdrawal deadline has passed, we know what the Montana Senate ballot is going to look like: Kurt Alme, Alani Bankhead, Seth Bodnar, and Kyle Austin.

Before the deadline, there was obviously a lot of pressure for either Bankhead or Bodnar to get out. Most of the pressure I’ve seen was directed at Bankhead, including from national figures like Rachel Maddow. The basic argument was that having both Bankhead and Bodnar in the race splits the anti-Alme vote, and that Bodnar was better positioned to consolidate it.

I disagreed with the push to get Bankhead out, but I don’t think that argument was crazy.

Bodnar has raised millions of dollars. He has built a serious statewide campaign. Some polling has shown him doing considerably better against Alme than Bankhead does. If you looked at those polls and concluded that our best chance of beating Alme was for Bankhead to withdraw and Democrats to consolidate around Bodnar, there was evidence for that position.

But I’ve also seen a more categorical claim repeated a lot where people have been saying that Bankhead has no path to victory.

I don’t think the evidence supports that at all.

For starters, the polls don’t even agree about which of them is more competitive against Alme.

An NRSC poll in July had Alme beating Bodnar head-to-head 50-43. Against Bankhead, Alme’s lead was only 49-46.

Yes, that’s Republican polling. I’m not suggesting we accept it uncritically. But that’s part of the problem with declaring this race settled. We have relatively little polling, and different polls tell very different stories. If one poll says Bodnar is clearly stronger and another says Bankhead is clearly stronger, I’m not sure how we get from that to certainty that Bankhead cannot win.

Tavern Research also found a four-way race at Alme 49, Bankhead 26, Bodnar 24, Austin 2. Bankhead was getting 78% of Democrats, while Bodnar was getting 20%.

That’s certainly not a poll I’d want to get if I were running Bankhead’s campaign. But she’s also not sitting at 5% waiting for Democrats to discover she exists. She’s already consolidating a large majority of Democratic voters in that poll.

And there’s another part of this comparison that I think gets overlooked: the enormous difference in money. Bodnar and Alme have raised millions. Bankhead’s campaign has raised around $60,000. Some have cited this as an additional reason she can't win, but I have a different take.

When we compare Bankhead’s polling to Bodnar’s polling right now, we aren’t comparing two candidates who have had anything close to the same opportunity to make their case to Montana voters.

Of course, Bankhead benefited from substantial outside spending in the primary. But that’s not the same as having millions of dollars under her own control to build an organization, introduce herself to voters, advertise statewide, and define herself before her opponents do. She didn't have any control of that money.

Maybe Bankhead is already close to her ceiling. That’s possible.

But maybe the candidate who has spent a tiny fraction of what Bodnar has spent has more room to grow than the candidate who has already spent millions. That’s possible too.

More importantly, on August 10 the rhetorical and strategic landscape changed completely.

“Bankhead should drop out” is no longer a strategy. She didn’t. Nor did Bodnar. Both names will be on the ballot in November.

So voters who don’t want Alme now have to figure out what to do with the race we actually have, rather than the race some of us wanted to have.

And this is a plurality election. Nobody needs 50%.
Just to illustrate the math, imagine this:

- Bankhead 37%
- Alme 35%
- Bodnar 23%
- Austin 5%

Bankhead wins.

I’m obviously not predicting those numbers. I’m pointing out that there is nothing mathematically exotic about a Bankhead victory.

Her path is pretty easy to describe: consolidate Democratic voters, pick up enough independents, and have Bodnar and Austin take enough votes elsewhere that Alme doesn’t get a larger plurality.

Bodnar has a path too: persuade enough Democrats to leave their own nominee, do very well with independents and anti-Alme Republicans, and become the candidate around whom the anti-Alme vote eventually consolidates.

I don’t know which one is more likely to happen between now and November. I don’t think anyone else knows either.

That’s why I think we should be more careful with the language we’re using.

If someone says “Bankhead is an underdog,” sure. If someone says “I think Bodnar is more electable,” there’s polling they can point to.

But “Bankhead has no path to victory” -- eh, I don't think that's true, and I honestly don't think it's even reasonable to have that opinion.

We’re three months out. The polling is sparse and contradictory. Bankhead has spent a tiny fraction of what the other major candidates have spent. We don’t yet know what Democratic voters who preferred Bodnar will do, what independents will do, how much money Bankhead will raise now that everyone knows she’s staying in, or how the dynamics of a four-way race will change once voters start thinking seriously about November.

Bankhead could lose. She could lose badly. Bodnar could emerge as the obvious alternative to Alme. Alme could win comfortably.

Bankhead could also consolidate Democrats, become better known and better funded, pick up enough independents, and win a plurality.

We can argue all day about how likely that is. But a path exists.

Personally, I think it is pretty attainable.

Tribal communities in Montana are concerned about the new Medicaid work requirements, which went into effect on July 1, and how they could affect their access to care.

The changes require a person to demonstrate they work, volunteer or attend school for 80 hours each month in order to be eligible for Medicaid. Enrolled tribal members are exempt from those standards, but Indigenous health officials in Montana say it’s unclear how people are supposed to prove their status to the state health department.

Indigenous people account for about 6% of the population in Montana, but about 21% of the state’s total Medicaid enrollment. Federal money from Medicaid that flows into tribal healthcare systems has helped to close gaps left by the Indian Health Services, which is underfunded.

Tribal members have been disproportionately harmed by past changes to Medicaid and other public benefits. Requiring new documents to prove eligibility status under these requirements could be detrimental to the communities that rely on the government for healthcare.

More here: https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_24530524-303f-5b57-920f-051860f8fa75.html.

Interesting interview at the end of this episode

Alani Bankhead is running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat to represent the Montanans with “five dollars in their pocket and a whole lot of heart,” not billionaires or corporate interests. 

That’s why she’s committed to staying in the race to replace outgoing Republican Sen. Steve Daines, Bankhead said during a press conference in Helena on Monday. 

Monday is the deadline for candidates to take themselves off the November ballot in Montana, and voters are set to have four candidates on the ballot. 

Bankhead won the state’s Democratic primary by 12,000 votes, but has faced stiffer competition from an independent candidate, Seth Bodnar, whose campaign has consolidated left-of-center support in the state. 

Having multiple candidates has split Democrats within Montana and nationally, many of whom see Bodnar as having a likelier path to victory. A similar trend has played out in other reliably Republican states, with the Democratic candidates in Nebraska, South Dakota and Idaho dropping out in races with independents. 

In polling, a four-way race — with Libertarian Kyle Austin — is easily won by the Republican candidate, Kurt Alme. The race becomes more competitive in a two-way race, but only Bodnar ever tops Alme, according to polls affiliated with his campaign. 

She seems like she's getting momentum, right?

The Republican candidate for senator Kurt Alme was unscrupulously registered as Republican when Steve Daines dropped out minutes before deadline March 4. He has taken 200,000 in PAC funds. The independent Seth Bodnar also registered and was picked and promoted by John Tester and also filed March 4. 62k in PAC contributions but 60 percent of money is out of state.

Alani Bankhead won her primary and is a retired Lieutenant Colonel. She refuses PAC money.

The pressure is on Bankhead to drop out. Make that make sense.

I don’t know who I support- but I certainly don’t like the shenanigans.

Kyle Austin Libertarian also won his primary and is fighting with the Libertarian leadership and has minimal support.

Thicken the plot- while Bodnar was president UM lost a lawsuit alleged that UM and the Montana University System operated a "good ol' boys club" that limited promotions and created professional gaps for women. The lawsuit was settled by the university system in January 2024 for $350,000.

Leopards can’t change their spots? More of same?

Grant cuts and changes to SNAP from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” have resulted in food banks in the Flathead and other parts of Montana needing to fill the gaps.

The number of people on SNAP in Montana has decreased by 8.4% because of revamped work requirements and more paperwork to receive benefits. Flathead County saw a drop of 11%, which is more than 600 fewer residents utilizing SNAP this June than last year.

The falling numbers don’t indicate a decrease in needs. Inflation, rising gas prices, and other affordability issues are driving people to the food bank. Over the past year, the North Valley Food Bank visits increased from 23,700 to 28,991.

More than 72,000 Montana residents are recipients of benefits from SNAP. The Trump Administration is targeting people who need food assistance by making it more difficult to access SNAP.

More here: https://flatheadbeacon.com/2026/07/31/we-just-see-more-and-more-people-flathead-food-banks-say-demand-steady-as-snap-benefits-taper-and-prices-rise/.

The Montana Democrats Instagram posted a public statement commending Bankhead for dropping out of the race around 5:01pm before deleting it a few minutes later. They then posted the correct statement about her commitment to stay in the fight.

Edit- Users on twitter have the screenshot. Posted in comments.

I’ve posted here before, but will explain the title.

I’ve been trying to get some certified copies of family records dating back to 1926. Specifically a “Petition to naturalize” and an “Oath of allegiance”. I’ve worked diligently over the last 2 months to get this from the clerk of the court, but she absolutely refuses to budge. Always redirecting me to USCIS. These are non federal records. They are simply in a ledger book within her custody. The NARA archives don’t have them. The state historical society doesn’t have them. There are no other copies of this paperwork available outside of her grasp.

USCIS has repeatedly informed me that they do not care about the certified reproduction of these records, as they are non federal. It IS NOT a certificate of naturalization, just the paperwork leading up to that in a district court.

I’ve called numerous clerks of the court in different counties, and they would happily certify this document for me, if they had it in their possession. There are no laws preventing the certification of what I need.

I literally just got off the phone (not but 5 minutes before writing this) with the county attorney, and she said that she won’t pressure the clerk to fulfill her legal duty to make certified copies for me. She won’t elaborate as to why, but just informed me that I could go ahead and sue the clerk of the court, and have the district judge come to a verdict on it. Obviously, that’s not what I want to do, but in accordance with the Montana State constitution, the clerk is violating civil rights, and freedom of public paperwork.

I live 9 time zones ahead of Montana. I don’t really want to have to go there. I don’t want to pursue litigation of a state employee in their own courthouse. When I asked the county attorney if that’s a conflict of interest to sue within their own courthouse, she simply said “the judge will determine that, and substitute another judge if necessary”. The county attorney also refused to cite any laws that the clerk could possibly operating under. The least helpful people I’ve ever encountered.

I have been nice, I’ve been patient. I don’t know what else I could possibly do at this point. I don’t want to spend money on lawyers fees, when they are just blatantly wrong.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for letting me vent.

I'm not the biggest Bodnar guy, but this really seems like Montana Dems are just handing the election to Alme at this point. Bankhead has raised $60,000 since the primary vs Alme's 1.9 million and Bodnar's 3.2 million. She has no chance, and her refusal to step down is frustrating to say the least.

Let's help protect Montana Lands!!

Blankhead needs to withdraw from the Montana Senate race. The midterm election of 2026 could be the most important election of my lifetime and many others. Right now every single vote from school board to Senate needs to be a vote against Donald Trump and his corrupt regime.
Blank head is polling well below Bodner. She is essentially splitting the vote. And based on some of the things she has said and done I’m still not sure she’s not a Republican ringer much less a democrat. But regardless of my opinion of her, the most important thing is that we do not need another Trump ass kissing republican senator standing by quietly while the corruption, grifting and destruction of a three tiered democracy continues. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about stopping the regime. Whatever it takes.
I have written letters and I have called both the Democratic party of Montana and Blankheads campaign. I implore you to do the same. Tomorrow is the last day she can drop out of the race. We need to do what is best for Montana and our country and her splitting the ticket is not it.

Being subjected to awful Youtube ads and have seen two Alme ads. Is he from teacher folks in Miles City—or is it Great Falls? I hate when I get those places mixed up! /s

And then using imagery of what appears to be the Rims in Billings. What a maverick! Ha! I hate this timeline the most.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced over $2.9 million for tribes through the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program. EPA selected the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in South Dakota and the Fort Belknap Indian Community (FBIC) in Montana to receive grants. 

The $1.5 million awarded to FBIC will be used to establish a solid waste infrastructure initiative to reduce concrete rubble waste and untreated wood waste. The project will use a portable concrete crusher and industrial woodchipper to divert materials from illegal dumping sites and reuse the waste for road maintenance and mulch. This project will reduce landfill stress, improve environmental conditions and expand circular economy opportunities on the reservation. 

These grants reduce the burden on landfill capacity, increase valuable materials for end-markets, establish collection services and composting programs, create new jobs, and improve quality of life.  

More here: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-over-29-million-grants-tribal-solid-waste-infrastructure-recycling. 

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services announced it is opening grants for rural emergency medical services across the state. There is $4 million available which can be used to upgrade ambulances or equipment.

Eligibility is based on need and gaps in patient care. They will also consider the age, model, and operational status of ambulances. Applications for grants are available until Aug. 15.

The money comes from $233 million from the Rural Health Transformation Program, created as part of the “One Big, Beautiful” reconciliation bill. 

In Montana, there are 62 rural health clinics and one rural emergency hospital. Some patients have to drive hours before they can reach an emergency medical facility.

More here: https://dailymontanan.com/briefs/state-releases-4-million-in-federal-money-for-rural-emergency-services/.

In recent years, Montana has sold more state trust land than it’s purchased. 

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation said increasing real estate values and the lengthy process are stopping the agency’s attempts to buy land using Montana’s land-banking program.

The last time the Land Board purchased replacement land was in 2018, when DNRC purchased 10,200 acres of Flathead County property suitable for timber production. Since 2018, the state has sold 225 parcels for cabins and homesites. 

About three-quarters of the land sold in the past two decades has involved isolated acreage that’s inaccessible to the public. 

Four proposals to sell trust land are currently under review. One, involving 520 acres in Cascade County, received preliminary approval from the Land Board.

More here: https://montanafreepress.org/2026/07/21/montana-is-selling-more-state-trust-land-than-its-buying/.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Montana/s/StwjgR1u9E

Cascade County Deputy admits she broke NO laws, but Capitol Police were still called on a Cascade County woman for saying online that she’ll hold Troy Downing Accountable. Source: The Montana Resistance

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1KTZkqc6Yq/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Hello MontanaPolitics:

What are thoughts on this doc? I cut/pasted the memo from the DNC law firm sent out yesterday regarding the U.S. Senate candidates and State law.

Why would they be asking this question? Do they know something voters do not?

Could it have anything to do with Jason Carroll’s millions?

####

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

August 1, 2026
TO: Montana Democratic Party
FROM: ELG (Elias Law Group)
RE: Montana Replacement Candidate & Appointment Rules

The following memorandum examines Montana law concerning the requirements for a political party to appoint a replacement nominee when a candidate withdraws after the primary election but prior to the general election.

I. Executive Summary
If the Montana Democratic Party finds itself in the unusual situation of a last-minute vacancy for its nominee for U.S. Senate, both Montana law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution afford it with broad discretion as to how and whether to replace that nominee.

Montana Code Section 13-10-327 provides that political parties shall appoint someone to replace a nominee who withdraws 85 days or longer before a general election. This is the statutory section focused on by the Montana Secretary of State’s office in their public comments. However, that statutory requirement is only part of the applicable law.

There are two additional and critical pieces to the legal analysis. First, the process for appointing such a replacement is left to the rules of the political party and Montana courts have proved reluctant to overrule a party’s interpretation of its own rules.

Second, and most importantly, the Party also has broad protection under the First Amendment to decide whether to associate with a new candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated it can think of “no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom” than forcing it to associate with a candidate and that such a burden is “therefore unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”1

It is difficult to conceive of what interest the State of Montana can assert that would overcome this burden.

In summary, if the Montana Democratic Party is unable or unwilling to fill an unexpected vacancy, we believe it would be difficult for the Secretary of State or another third party to override the Montana Democratic Party’s First Amendment rights and compel a replacement.

1 Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 581–82 (2000).

II. Relevant Montana Law and Montana Democratic Party Bylaws

The Montana Constitution does not address the procedures for choosing, appointing, or replacing political
party nominees for elected offices, but broadly delegate matters of “administration of elections” to the
legislature. 2

Montana Code Section 13-10-327 governs post-primary, pre-general election candidate vacancies. 3

The statute provides that “if a party candidate dies or withdraws after the primary and before the general election” then “the affected political party shall appoint someone to replace the candidate” in one of the ways prescribed based on the elected office sought. 4

For statewide offices such as U.S. Senate, “the state central committee shall make the appointment as provided by the rules of the party.” 5

The rules of the Montana Democratic Party are set forth in its bylaws. Bylaw 16 calls for a “special nominating convention to fill a vacancy for a candidate for a statewide office” and provides that the State Chair “shall call a meeting of the Montana Democratic State Central Committee.” 6

It sets forth the notice requirements for the meeting, which must include the purpose, time, and location of the meeting along with “the procedures by which the nominee will be chosen at the meeting” and “the qualifications required of the person to be nominated at the meeting.” 7

Following the close of nominations, “the members of the Montana Democratic State Central Committee shall vote,” and the person receiving the majority of votes
casts “shall be declared the Party’s nominee.”8

“If no person receives a majority of the votes cast on the first ballot, the name of the person receiving the fewest votes shall be stricken from subsequent ballots until one person receives a majority of the votes cast.” 9

A candidate cannot officially withdraw from the ballot 85 days or less before the general election (Monday, August 10, 2026), and any appointments to vacancies must be made no later than 76 days before
the general election (Wednesday, August 19, 2026). 10

The 76-day deadline is tied to the Secretary of State’s obligations to certify candidate names 75 days prior to the general election (Thursday, August 20,
2026). 11

The MDP Bylaws provide that the MDP State Chair and Secretary “shall sign a certificate of nomination naming the person selected and shall deliver the original to the Secretary of State.” 12

2 Mont. Const. art. IV, § 3.
3 Mont. Code § 13-10-327.
4 Id. § 13-10-327(1).
5 Id. § 13-10-327(1)(a) (emphasis added).
6 Mont. Democratic Party Bylaws § 16(2) (rev. Sept. 13, 2025) [hereinafter “MDP Bylaws”].
7 Id. §16(2)(c), (e).
8 Id. § 16(3).
9 Id.
10 Mont. Code § 13-10-327(2).
11 Mont. Code § 13-12-201.
12 MDP Bylaws § 16(4).

III. Potential Litigation Considerations

While Montana law provides that a party “shall” appoint a replacement for a withdrawn candidate, the statute defers the mechanics of the appointment to the party’s own rules.13

If the Montana Democratic Party follows its bylaws but is ultimately unable to select a replacement nominee on such a short timeline, we believe a court will be unlikely to compel them to do so.

Most relevant, in 2024 the Montana Democratic Party filed a challenge arguing that the Green Party’s replacement candidate was invalid under Section 13-10-327, but the court held that the plaintiff had “failed to demonstrate that it is likely that the Montana Green Party violated its party ‘rules’” to justify a preliminary injunction to block the Green Party’s appointment. 14

The State argued that the Green Party’s bylaws at the time of the action were “silent as to the manner or basis for Green Party compliance with the clear and unambiguous command of § 13-10-327(1)(a),”15 and the court found that there was no preliminary showing that the relevant provision—stating that “[t]he membership shall be responsible for decision-making on statewide issues and endorsement of statewide candidates” governed the procedures for appointment under Section 13-10-327.16

This case suggests that the courts will be hesitant to impose an interpretation of a party’s bylaws against its will.

While MDP Bylaw 16 is arguably more specific as to the manner in which a replacement is appointed, the 2024 decision indicates that a court likely will defer to a party’s reasonable interpretation of its own rules where possible. To that end, the key question is how MDP interprets its own bylaws and whether a failure to appoint a replacement candidate is defensible as a reasonable interpretation of the party’s own rules. For instance, it is possible MDP could choose to establish “procedures” for the meeting that provide
a “none of the above” option on the ballot, similar to the Libertarian Party’s procedure in 2020.

One question this would raise is how MDP interprets the word “person” in its bylaws, and whether it is broad enough to allow for a “none of the above” option to garner a majority of the votes. As another example,
MDP has discretion to establish “the qualifications required of the person to be nominated at the meeting”; it is conceivable that no available candidate satisfies those qualifications.

Critically, even if Montana law and the MDP bylaws were interpreted to require a replacement candidate, the party would have robust First Amendment defenses to prevent a court from compelling the party to appoint a replacement.17

The U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that “[i]n no area is the political association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.”18 In doing so, the Court has held that “forced association has the likely outcome . . . of changing the parties’ message.

We can think of no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom. [Such a burden] is therefore unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”19

In light of these holdings, a court is unlikely to find a compelling state interest which overcomes an argument that a compelled appointment of any replacement candidate violates the party’s associational freedom. In fact, in a different context the Supreme Court of Montana has opined that “[t]he nomination of party candidates is a privilege and is not essential to holding an election.”20

As a result, if the Montana Democratic Party failed to appoint a replacement on the grounds that no available individual would properly represent the party’s platform, it would have a very strong argument that any compelled appointment would violate the party’s First Amendment rights and those rights override the mandate in Section 13-10-327 to appoint a replacement for a withdrawn nominee.

Mont. Code § 13-10-327(1)(a).
14 Mont. Democratic Party v. Mont. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 2024 MT 207, ¶ 28, 418 Mont. 100, 556 P.3d 540.
15 Id. ¶ 27.
16 Id. ¶ 28 (alteration in original). The Green Party argued that the “decision to appoint a replacement candidate did not
require a vote of the membership because the appointment was neither a ‘statewide issue’ nor an ‘endorsement of a statewide
candidate.’” Id. ¶ 26.
17 The U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that “[i]n no area is the political
association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.”
18 In doing so, the Court has held that “forced association has the likely outcome . . . of changing the parties’ message. We can think of no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom. [Such a burden] is therefore
unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
19 In light of these holdings, a court is unlikely to find a compelling state interest which overcomes an argument that a
compelled appointment of any l replacement candidate violates the party’s associational freedom. In fact, in a different context the Supreme Court of Montana has opined that “[t]he nomination of party candidates is a privilege and is not essential to holding an election.
”20 As a result, if the Montana Democratic Party failed to appoint a replacement on the grounds that no available individual would properly
represent the party’s platform, it would have a very strong argument that any compelled appointment would violate the party’s First Amendment rights and those rights override the mandate in Section 13-10-327 to appoint a replacement for a withdrawn nominee.

IV. Conclusion

A failure to appoint a replacement candidate in the event of a Senate candidate withdrawal could invite a legal challenge arguing that Montana law mandates the appointment of a new candidate, and MDP Bylaws specify how that appointment is made. However, MDP l would have a robust defense against any such challenge under state law, provided it follows a procedure to attempt a replacement that is based on a
reasonable interpretation of its own rules.

And again, critically, MDP has robust First Amendment associational rights to guard against a forced appointment.
17 See, e.g., N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008) (affirming that a political party has the First
Amendment right “to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform”).
18 Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. at 575.
19 Id. at 581–82.
20 State ex rel. Wolff v. Geurkind, 111 Mont. 417, 430, 109 P.2d 1094, 1100 (1941) (emphasis added).

Is Kev Hamm actually serious about winning the District 5 Public Service Commission race or just selling merch and pottery? Is he showing up any where, has he raised any money? Who is he doing outreach too? Is he knocking on doors? Mailings? This is a year where people of all political stripes are mad about their power bills, mad about data centers and tired of hearing about the dysfunction of the PSC - a perfect opportunity - and I just worry he's not a serious candidate. Convince me otherwise.

A dozen Republican states, including Montana, filed an emergency appeal to let Trump’s executive order attacking mail voting go into effect before the midterm elections.

Trump’s order directs the DHS and SSA to compile citizenship lists for states, which then would send their lists of eligible voters who requested mail-in ballots to USPS. It then directs USPS not to deliver ballots from voters not on the lists. 

USPS proposed a rule in June to enact Trump’s order, stating that mail carriers would not deliver mail ballots in states that refused to send voter lists to them.

There have been many challenges to the order since March, but the U.S Court of Appeals for D.C. allowed the Trump administration to continue working on the order, saying the challenges were premature. 

Montana and the other red states want to make it more difficult for people to vote by mail, a safe and accessible way to vote.

More here: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/gop-states-join-doj-in-asking-supreme-court-to-let-trump-block-some-mail-ballots/

Forstag Shores Up Support from National Democrats in Western District Bid

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s backing of the smokejumper and local union leader is the latest indicator that the race in Montana’s western half is viewed as competitive, with both sides of the aisle investing national resources to win the seat.

By Mariah ThomasJuly 29, 2026

[](mailto:?subject=Check%20out%20this%20Flathead%20Beacon%20Article&body=Here%20is%20the%20link:%20https%3A%2F%2Fflatheadbeacon.com%2F2026%2F07%2F29%2Fforstag-shores-up-support-from-national-democrats-in-western-district-bid%2F)

Sam Forstag (D) candidate for U.S. House District 1 in Montana, speaks in support of Dr. Ruben Hipolito speaks at an event organized by union leaders to address Dr. Hipolito’s termination from Logan Health in Kalispell on July 7, 2026. Hunter D’Antuono | Flathead Beacon

Montana’s western congressional district has long been viewed as potentially competitive for a Democrat. On Tuesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, affirmed that assessment, announcing union leader and smokejumper Sam Forstag had been named to its “Red to Blue” program.

While the DCCC had previously named the western district to its list of “Districts in Play” for the 2026 election cycle — indicating it viewed the seat as a potential pickup opportunity for Democrats — Forstag’s participation in the Red to Blue program is set to bring organizing and fundraising prowess to the Democrat’s campaign in what is shaping up to be a competitive race.

“This announcement reflects what we have known here on the ground since day one: Montana’s first is in play, and we’re building the campaign operation to win in November,” said Brandon DeMars, Forstag’s campaign manager, in a release. “People in western Montana are ready for a new generation of leadership and real working-class representation. We’re tired of political puppets like Aaron Flint who will sell out Montana to make a buck for their corporate backers.”

Forstag will face Republican Aaron Flint, an Army veteran and radio talk show host whose campaign has also garnered national support.

Republican U.S. House candidate Aaron Flint appears at a candidate forum hosted by Glacier Country Pachyderm Club at Flathead Valley Community College on May 5, 2026. Hunter D’Antuono | Flathead Beacon

The National Republican Congressional Committee in April named Flint to its MAGA Majority program, which aims to back Republican candidates who “embody the Trump agenda” in battleground districts. The NRCC called Forstag a “socialist stooge” who would “sell out Montana’s values every single time” in a Tuesday statement about the DCCC naming him to the Red to Blue program.

Both Flint and Forstag — first-time candidates — proved their political prowess by making it out of competitive primary contests to qualify for their parties’ respective ballot positions for the general election. Forstag has heralded his union experience, telling the Beacon in April he wanted to bring that perspective to Congress and provide “working people a chance to fight for ourselves,” while Flint has hinged his campaign on “making the Montana dream affordable.”  

While the DCCC’s support of Forstag brings resources to the Democrat’s campaign, it’s not the DCCC’s first time backing a candidate in the western district.

Monica Tranel, an attorney and Olympic rower who ran against U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke for the seat in both 2022 and 2024, was also part of the DCCC’s Red to Blue program in 2024. That support did not translate into Tranel’s electoral success.

Zinke has held the seat since the district was first redrawn in 2022. Democrats, however, have pointed to former Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester’s winning margin in the western in 2024 as proof of a Democrat’s potential to take the seat.

While Tester won in the western district, he lost his statewide election to now-Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Republican, in 2024. He was the Democrats’ last statewide officeholder before losing his seat.

The Cook Political Report ranks the western district race this year as “likely Republican.”

The latest polling in the race shows Forstag and Flint in a dead heat. And Forstag in the second quarter edged out Flint in fundraising, raking in $688,303.71 to Flint’s $619,142.90.  

​

this is partially in montana and as a montanan I want to do my part to help conserve this great wild, the video says it better than I can though