Montana Senate can’t muster enough votes to punish former president Ellsworth

Apnews - Mar 25th, 2025

The Montana Senate reached a deadlock over the expulsion of former Senate President Jason Ellsworth, who faced ethics violations for not disclosing a conflict of interest. Ellsworth directed $170,100 of government work to a business associate without revealing their 20-year relationship. Despite two attempts, the Senate failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to expel him, with only 27 votes in favor out of the necessary 34. Efforts to censure Ellsworth, which included removing him from key committees and temporarily banning him from the Senate floor, also fell short. The unresolved situation extends a scandal that has dominated Montana Senate politics since January.

The ethics investigation, led by Sen. Forrest Mandeville, highlighted that Ellsworth did not follow proper bidding procedures for contracts exceeding $100,000. A separate state Department of Justice investigation is probing whether Ellsworth divided the contract to evade legal thresholds, pointing to potential abuse of power. Ellsworth, absent from the Senate since late February, acknowledged the appearance of impropriety but denied any legal violations or personal gain. The case underscores ongoing tensions in Montana politics and raises questions about ethical standards and accountability within the state legislature.

Conflict Of Interest Government Contracts Jason Ellsworth Montana Senate Ethics Violations Senate Expulsion

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical allegations against Jason Ellsworth and the Montana Senate's response. It scores highly in accuracy, timeliness, and public interest due to its factual reporting and relevance to ongoing political issues. The article is generally well-balanced and clear, though it could benefit from a more detailed exploration of Ellsworth's defense and the procedural aspects of the ethics investigation. Source quality is strong, with credible quotes from involved parties, but could be enhanced with additional expert commentary. While the article effectively engages readers interested in political ethics, incorporating interactive elements could further boost engagement. Overall, the article responsibly covers a controversial topic with potential implications for public trust and governance.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports the stalemate in the Montana Senate over the expulsion and censure of Jason Ellsworth. It correctly states that the Senate failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed for expulsion and details the ethics violations related to Ellsworth's undisclosed relationship with a contractor. The claim that Ellsworth directed $170,100 in government work to a business associate without disclosure aligns with the reported findings of the Senate Ethics Committee. However, the article should verify the exact details of the Department of Justice's investigation into whether Ellsworth split contracts to avoid bidding requirements. Overall, the article presents factual information but could benefit from additional source verification on ongoing investigations.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by including perspectives from both sides of the debate. It quotes senators who supported and opposed Ellsworth's expulsion, offering insights into their reasoning. For instance, Sen. Chris Pope's statement against expulsion and Sen. Forrest Mandeville's support for it are both presented. However, the article leans slightly towards emphasizing the allegations against Ellsworth without equally highlighting his defense, such as his claim of not violating any rules. Including more details about Ellsworth's side could improve balance.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It starts with the stalemate outcome, provides background on the ethics violations, and includes reactions from various senators. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a broad audience. However, the article could improve clarity by separating the main narrative from related coverage and additional allegations against Ellsworth, which are briefly mentioned but not fully explored.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including statements from senators involved in the proceedings and details from the Senate Ethics Committee's findings. It references the Legislature’s director of legal services, Todd Everts, for procedural information, which adds credibility. However, the article could enhance source quality by including direct quotes or statements from independent experts or legal analysts to provide a broader context for the ethics violations and potential legal implications.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the sources of its information, mainly relying on direct quotes from involved parties and official proceedings. It clearly outlines the basis for the ethics allegations and the procedural aspects of the Senate's actions. However, it lacks detailed information on how the ethics investigation was conducted and the specific evidence considered. Providing more context on these elements would improve transparency and help readers understand the foundation of the claims made.