Steve Daines Doesn’t Respect Montana Voters

Close to the end of the business day on March 4, Sen. Steve Daines R-Mont. unexpectedly dropped out of the U.S. Senate Elections, just as former U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme filed his bid to run. This coordinated effort to sneak Alme in.

Daines withdrew two minutes before 5 p.m., the deadline for all candidates to cast their bids, according to a March 4 Montana Free Press article. Alme also conveniently filed his bid for a spot in the Republican primary only eight minutes before the deadline closed, according to a March 5 PBS article.

An hour later, President Donald Trump praised Daines’ work in the Senate and lauded him for passing the torch to Alme in a Truth Social Post, essentially implicating Daines’ involvement in Alme’s last-minute bid.

While political maneuvering is often complicated and sneaky, Daines’ waiting until the last minute to withdraw — combined with his clear involvement in Alme’s bid to run — crosses the line into unfair and undemocratic practices.

This move undermines Montanans’ ability to fairly choose a candidate to represent themselves, and the unjust nature of the decision hasn’t escaped voters.

“It doesn’t make sense that that just so perfectly naturally happened, that he just so happened to withdraw [two] minutes before the deadline,” said political science major Izzy Watson. “I don’t think anyone buys that that just naturally occurred.”

Generally, incumbent candidates — those who already hold the seat they are running for — win congressional elections. This electoral edge is known as the incumbency advantage. According to a study by the University of Georgia, incumbents are reelected about 90 percent of the time.

As an incumbent, Daines would have been a tough candidate to beat this year. In 2020, former Democratic Montana Governor Steve Bullock challenged him for his seat. Despite Bullock’s big name and established political identity, Daines won the race by 10 points.

These campaigns were also not without cost. According to the Federal Election Commission, Daines raised more than $33 million while Bullock brought in almost $50 million. At the time, these were the most expensive political campaigns in Montana history.

This election cycle, the Democratic Party didn’t throw any big names into the race. The exorbitant cost of challenging Daines last time probably scared them off. However, an open election would have provided them a fairer shot. When two new candidates are running, neither has the incumbency advantage, and the field is more even.

By waiting so long to withdraw from the race, Daines blocked the Democratic Party from raising a strong candidate or preparing to fundraise for a campaign. Why would any party spend resources on a seat they assumed was unwinnable?

While obscuring his intentions to prevent an opposing party from fielding a strong candidate could be considered crafty politics, Daines went a step further than this. He established an heir in Alme and thrust him into the Republican primary as the only real name.

While others are running in the primary, they are likely unfamiliar names and are definitely not as entrenched in Montana politics as a former U.S. Attorney. Daines not only helped prevent a strong Democratic opponent, he helped prevent any strong opposition whatsoever.

“This matters to me as someone who wants someone representing my interests, and I don’t think someone who filed 10 minutes before the deadline closed is really going to represent my interests,” Watson said.

The point of democratic elections is to give people a say in their representation. Sneakily pulling out of a race and endorsing your buddy at the last minute hinders the natural order of democracy.

“It feels shady in a way that I don’t want for a public official that’s supposed to represent my interests,” Watson said.

According to her, political maneuvering is not uncommon. While subversive actions like this are not one-offs, Watson said she still doesn’t agree with them. “It didn’t feel super transparent or democratic when that happened,” she said.

According to a 2025 article by PBS, Rep. Chuy Garcia D-Ill. pulled a similar election ploy in November, pulling his bid out at the last minute to clear the road for his chief of staff. The House voted in favor of a resolution to rebuke Garcia and condemn election subversion. By that standard, Daines deserves the same level of accountability.

While Daines served Montana for years, his actions should provide a warning to voters. Although many in Montana might be happy to have Alme replace Daines, the damage of skirting around the selection process could have larger implications for Montana voters.

If Daines can get away with it, what’s to stop every incumbent politician from directly choosing their successor?