Chris Williams, interviewed in "Code of the West."

Chris Williams, a medical marijuana grower from Montana, faces at least five years in federal prison after being caught up in a March 2011 federal raid on 26 dispensaries throughout the state. Montana voters passed an initiative in 2004 allowing distribution for medical needs, but marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Due to previous policies announced by the Obama Administration that federal resources would not focus on individuals operating within state law, Williams and his associates believed their medical marijuana business, “Montana Cannabis,” was in the legal clear. But after complaints from local citizens who could see marijuana plants being grown in greenhouses, the federal government decided to crack down.

Though Williams reportedly never handled them himself, several firearms were also found during the raid on Montana Cannabis. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Taggard reasoned the weapons were used to protect the business’ operation — though Williams’ lawyer, Michael Donahoe, said they were the individual possessions of the other employees — and as a result charges of possessing a firearm in the furtherance of drug trafficking were added to the initial drug trafficking charges. The combined effect brought the total mandatory minimum sentence Williams was facing to over 80 years.

Eventually, the government proposed a deal reducing Williams’ minimum to 10 years in exchange for waiving his right to appeal. Williams initially refused the offer. But when a new deal was put forward in December of 2012, reducing the minimum to 5 years, Williams relented. He said his primary concern was for his 16-year-old son, a freshman at Montana State University: The new minimum holds out at least the possibility that Williams will be out of jail in time to attend his son’s college graduation.

Williams and his associates — Tom Daubert, Chris Lindsey, and Richard Flor — envisioned Montana Cannabis as a “gold standard” for medical marijuana dispensaries, and regularly gave tours to local and state politicians and law enforcement officials. Daubert, who has advocated for medical marijuana reform for years, was interviewed by ThinkProgress in October 2012 about his experiences. He and Lindsey both accepted plea deals to reduce their sentences, and had to testify against Williams at his trial as part of their agreements with prosecutors.

The 68-year-old Flor, who suffered from multiple medical problems including dementia and depression, was sentenced to five years in prison. He died in custody this past August.

Of all the people caught up in the March 2011 federal crackdown, Williams is the only one who took his case all the way to trial. In a letter to the Helena Independent Record, Williams wrote that his initial refusal to take a plea deal was a matter of principle. “I have decided to fight the federal government, because for me not defending the things that I know are right is dishonorable,” the letter read in part. “Every citizen has a responsibility to fight for what is right, even if it seems like the struggle will be lost.

Tom Daubert was one of the subjects of an award-winning documentary, “Code of the West,” and the filmmakers also shot a mini-documentary on Williams’ story for The New York Times.

An online petition was started for the White House to grant Chris Williams a full pardon. It met its December 12 deadline, garnering the 25,000 signatures needed for a response from the Obama Administration. As of November last year, President Obama had pardoned 22 people and given one commutation — a smaller total than any president since John Adams.

(Hat tip to Reason’s Jacob Sullum.)

The Montana Supreme Court

Yesterday, a sharply divided Montana Supreme Court turned aside a lawsuit by several same-sex couples “complaining that they are unable to obtain protections and benefits that are available to similarly situated different-sex couples who marry under State law.” Although this is a setback for gay rights, it is not clear that this setback will be permanent. Rather than challenge a particular provision of law, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit “seek a general declaration of their rights and seek orders enjoining the State to provide them a ‘legal status and statutory structure’ that protects their rights.” In essence, yesterday’s order tells the plaintiffs to be more specific in explaining just how their rights have been violated — and which specific statutes have violated them — and then come back an try again.

Three of the court’s seven justices dissented, in opinions indicating that they would extend equal benefits to gay couples right now, rather than wait for another round of litigation. One justice, Justice Jim Rice, wrote a separate concurring opinion indicating that he rejects extending equal rights to gay couples outright. So, with three votes on record in support of gay rights and only one opposed, the plaintiffs appear to be in a strong position if their case reaches these same justices again.

The most significant impact of yesterday’s order, however, is that it ensures that this issue will not reach the same panel of seven justices again. Justice James Nelson will retire from the bench this month. And his 119 page dissenting opinion leaves no doubt that he is the court’s staunchest supporter of equality:

There are many who believe that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens; that they are morally inferior; that they are objects worthy of societal scorn, derision, and hatred; that they may be reviled and demonized on the floor of the Legislature with impunity; that they may be discriminated against by local governments; that they may be bullied in their schools and workplaces; and that they are not entitled to the same rights accorded to heterosexuals. Such views parallel those held by many—even the United States Supreme Court—regarding racial minorities and women a century ago. . . . We legitimize those similar, pernicious views about gays and lesbians when, as the Court does today, we abrogate our solemn obligation to declare and uphold the constitutional rights of all Montanans—especially those among us who have been subjected to majoritarian and state-imposed hatred and discrimination.

My abiding belief is that no person—no human being—in our society should be reviled, demonized, and discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, any more than they should be treated in that fashion for being Native American, Presbyterian, female, disabled, poor, or Irish. No person should be the object of state-sanctioned bigotry simply for being born homosexual or for choosing to love another person of the same sex. No person should be made to suffer the deprivation of their civil rights and liberties because of the religious beliefs and doctrines of others—doctrines that are now constitutionalized in the Marriage Amendment and enforced by Montana’s government. And no person should be stripped of her or his inviolable human dignity based on sexual orientation. Ever!

Although Nelson deeply regrets the court’s decision to put this question off until another day, he ends his opinion on a hopeful note: “the taboo will die because the scare tactics, propaganda, and misinformation of those who would hang on to the maledictions and stereotypes have proven to be so patently false, malicious, and absurd. Most decent people just hate being lied to. Indeed, a not-too-distant generation of Montanans will consign today’s decision, the Marriage Amendment, and the underlying intolerance to the dustbin of history and to the status of a meaningless, shameful, artifact.”

An immigration advocacy organization and other groups are challenging the constitutionality of a new Montana law that requires people to provide proof of citizenship before receiving state services or benefits. It allows state agencies to deny undocumented immigrants as well as anyone else without the proper documentation the ability to attend a state college, register for a professional license, access services for victims of crimes, or receive certain benefits for people with physical disabilities.

The Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance filed the lawsuit along with the state’s largest union and Alisha Blair, a 22-year-old Montana resident who was born in Canada to a mother who’s a Canadian citizen and a father who is a U.S. citizen. According to the Independent Record, Blair was accepted to the University of Montana, but the college denied her financial aid because she did not have proof of U.S. citizenship even though she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in Montana since she was 1 year old. She said she didn’t attend college because she couldn’t afford the tuition.

In 2011, a similar bill failed in the Montana legislature before the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. David Howard (R), submitted the citizenship measure as a legislative referendum. After the legislature passed it, the bill went to the voters as a ballot referendum. Eighty percent of Montana voters approved of the measure in November. As a result, “the law now places the burden on the average Montanan to prove that they are here legally, or they will be denied state services,” the Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance said in a press release.

Citing a misreading of the U.S. Constitution and overblown fears of a collapsing U.S. currency, Montana State Rep. Jerry O’Neil (R) claims that he should be paid his legislative salary in gold and silver:

In a letter sent to Montana Legislative Services this week, O’Neil cites Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part that no state shall “make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”

He said that in his 10 years as a legislator, he considered it a “trivial matter” and he “did not want to be branded as a fanatic over an issue of no consequence.” But now he says he is looking at the value of the dollar “in a new light.” . . .

In his letter, O’Neil points out that he does not want to be paid at the face value of $50 American Eagle gold coins or $1 silver American Eagle coins. He stipulates that he should be paid at their market values, currently $1,801 for the gold coin and $35.28 for the silver coin.

“Let’s say I made $1,800 in a month. They could give one gold American Eagle” or multiple silver American Eagles, he said.

Fears that the U.S. dollar is caught in a spiral of disastrous inflation are common among the tea party fringe, as are similar claims that the way to defend against such inflation is to horde gold and silver. Indeed, these misguided fears are widespread enough that scam gold dealers, such as Goldline, allegedly take advantage of them by selling overpriced gold to tea partiers and others gripped by false fears of inflation. In reality, inflation is currently both very low and quite stable — and it is well below the rate of inflation under most of President Reagan’s two terms.

Additionally, O’Neil’s reading of America’s founding document is constitutional gobbledygook. The Constitution does indeed provide that “No state shall . . . coin money; emit bills of credit [or] make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts,” a provision intended to prevent the states from printing their own paper currencies, but the key words in this constitutional provision are “no state shall.” Nothing prevents the federal government from printing currency which, as anyone who has ever read the front of a dollar bill knows, is “legal tender for all debts, public and private.” That includes the salaries Montana pays its lawmakers.

A federal judge in Montana rejected an emergency request Tuesday by 15 Native American plaintiffs who argue the lack of polling places on reservations violates the Voting Rights Act and amounts to discrimination. The judge, Richard Cebull, acknowledged Native Americans do not have equal access to the polls, but said the plaintiffs were unable to prove “that they can’t elect the candidates of their choice.”

I’m not arguing that the opportunity is equal for Indian persons as it is to non-Indians . . . Because of poverty, because of the lack of vehicles and that sort of thing, it’s probably not equal. However, you have to prove … that they can’t elect candidates of their choice.

The emergency ruling means the state will not set up satellite voting stations on reservations for this November’s election. The lawsuit, however, will continue after the election. The Native American vote is crucial to the reelection of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and maintaining the Senate’s Democratic majority.

Most Native Americans in Montana — of which an estimated 30,000 are eligible voters — live on reservations that lack voting stations. As a result, some have to travel more than 120 miles to complete voter registration and fill out early voting forms. With higher than average poverty and unemployment rates, it is likely some Native Americans lack the resources to travel such distances.

The state claims the tribes did not give enough notice for anything to be done, but the plaintiffs sent a letter to Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch in early May requesting assistance. They also offered to cover the cost of setting up the satellite stations. The Department of Justice supports the Native Americans’ lawsuit and says, “Without an injunction, Native Americans in Big Horn, Blaine, and Rosebud counties will not have the same electoral opportunities as their white counterparts.”

– Greg Noth

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT)

A Montana judge Wednesday halted a plan by former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R), currently his party’s nominee for Montana governor, to evade state campaign finance limits and take a $500,000 contribution from the state Republican Party. The contribution had been made in a brief six-day window when a federal judge’s ruling prohibited Montana from enforcing its limits on campaign contributions — a ruling now on hold, as a federal appeals court determined a challenge to his order was “likely to succeed.”

District Judge Kathy Seeley issued a restraining order, stopping Hill from spending any of the party’s donation and ordering him to cancel any pending ad buys he has made with those funds. She ordered a hearing to consider the case for Monday morning, just eight days before the election. A federal judge also rejected on Wednesday an attempt by the Hill campaign to move the case to federal court.

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell threw out Montana’s campaign contribution limits, writing that they prevent candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.” On October 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed his ruling and later ordered that the state’s campaign finance rules be operative for this year’s election.

The Montana Republican Party opted to use the six-day gap to make a large transfer — $500,000 — from its coffers to Hill’s campiagn. The Hill campaign accepted the money and said it would keep and spend the cash, as it was a legal contribution at the time it was made. Democratic nominee and current Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock filed suit claiming the contribution was still illegal — well over the state’s $22,600 maximum aggregate limit. While the state party could have spent the money on ads of its own rather than contribute it to Hill, federal law allows candidates to buy them at a significantly lower rate.

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT)

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell threw out Montana’s campaign contribution limits, writing that they prevent candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.” On October 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed his ruling and, noting that the state’s appeal was “likely to succeed,” later ordered that the state’s campaign finance rules be operative for this year’s election.

But that left a six-day window in which Montana was prohibited from enforcing its limits on campaign contributions. The Montana Republican Party opted to use that gap to make a large transfer — $500,000 — from its coffers to the gubernatorial campaign of former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R). The Hill campaign accepted the money and says it will keep and spend the cash, as it was a legal contribution at the time it was made.

State Democrats are crying foul. State Attorney General Steve Bullock, the Democratic nominee for governor, says his campaign accepted no over-the-limit donations in the brief period and will challenge the donation. The Associated Press reports:

Bullock’s campaign filed a complaint with the commissioner of political practices, which oversees campaign finance reporting for state candidates. The attorney general also said he may file another complaint in court with the aim of blocking Hill from using the money before the Nov. 6 election. Lovell’s ruling only briefly prevented the commissioner from enforcing the campaign contribution limits, and it didn’t give candidates the right to accept such donations, Bullock said. Violation of state election laws is a misdemeanor crime.

“It shows that he’s going to go to any level, including taking illegal contributions, to win the election,” Bullock said of Hill. “This is a serious violation. It’s a $500,000 violation of Montana’s laws. There certainly could be implications beyond the election.”

With polls showing the race in a virtual dead heat and relatively low state donation limits, the Montana Republican Party’s contribution amounts to a significant sum, and could potentially make the difference. Even if his ruling is ultimately overturned in the appeals process, Reagan appointee Lovell’s ruling against any campaign finance limits could sway the election.