Letters to the editor Sept. 11
Glacier Country Pachyderm
Glacier Country Pachyderm presents itself as a political club promoting Republican candidates and educating the public on conservative values. I attended meetings for nine months with the intent of supporting principles like fiscal responsibility, constitutional law, limited government, separation of church and state, intellectual honesty and civility in public discourse.
Instead, I encountered a disturbing pattern of defamatory and inflammatory rhetoric. Guest speakers regularly engaged in uncivil, bigoted and false attacks — labeling opponents as “communists,” “Marxist lunatics,” or worse. One speaker referred to Sen. Jon Tester as a “350-pound bag of manure.” Another accused Native Americans of voter fraud. Still others promoted tax evasion, conspiracy theories about Chinese space lasers and violent threats, like “sending our opponents to their maker.”
When I attempted to address these concerns respectfully, I was met with hostility. Flathead area Representative Tom Millett, who a federal judge entered judgment against for more than $427,000 for unpaid federal tax liabilities, publicly labeled me a Marxist.* Ironically, Karl Marx believed taxation was unnecessary — a view Millett might embrace given his history.
For voicing objections to hate speech and disinformation, I was expelled by a unanimous vote of the Pachyderm board of directors.
My experience suggests that Glacier Country Pachyderm is not a forum for thoughtful Republican discourse. I urge fellow conservatives: if you believe in integrity, respect and the core values of our party, be aware — speaking up may cost you your place at the table.
— Thomas H. Oberlitner, Kalispell
* UPDATE: In July of 2023, a federal judge entered judgment against Mr. Millett for more than $427,000 for unpaid federal tax liabilities. Mr. Millett was not convicted of criminal tax evasion.
Checks and balances
Michael Boharski’s recent letter to the editor contends we need to know where judges stand politically to vote for one who will represent our interests.
My interests are best served by a judge who is fair, impartial, knowledgeable of the law and not beholding to any special interest like a political party. Partisan elections would obliterate judicial objectivity by requiring a political bias in the candidates selected to run for office.
Proponents of partisan judicial elections say they are necessary to cure “legislating from the bench.” They seek to cure that “problem” by making sure judges are politically aligned with them. Baloney. The recent bills passed by our Legislature and later overturned in court were unconstitutional. The judges did their job. Some in the Legislature seek to make sure that doesn’t happen anymore.
The judicial branch is intended to be independent of the legislative and executive branches. It serves as a check and a balance to those branches of government. If we allow partisan elections for judges, we will get partisan rulings from the bench. It’s a tidy way for the political party currently in power to make the judicial branch aligned with them ... and less relevant.
Without a constitutional amendment to prohibit partisan elections, it is quite possible that zealots in the Legislature will end Montana’s tradition of non-partisan elections and will systematically run candidate judges vetted to serve their party before they serve the law.
Judges should enter the courtroom not beholding to any party. In the next few months, if you get a chance to sign a petition to place a constitutional amendment on the upcoming ballot to require non-partisan judicial elections, please sign it. The critical role of an unbiased judiciary is at stake. The words “partisan” and “judge” do not belong together.
— Steve Brady, Kalispell