(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "1996 Voter information pamphlet"

MONTANA 
STATE 




This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes 



324.786 

S2vp 

1996 



6 VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET 



UaSt your vote on November 5th! 





ure IS lA lour 
"lands 




Z DOCUMENTS COLLECTION 



JUL 1 8 2002 



ONTANA STATE LIBRARY 

1515 E. 6th AVE. 
ELENA, MONTANA 59620 



The cover's drawing was done by Katie Barrett, of Bonner Elementary School, 
winner of the Voter Information Pamphlet cover contest. 



What's Inside Arg 


uments 


Text 


What's Inside 


Arg 


uments 


Text 


Constitutional Amendment 30 


3 


25 


Initiative 122 




13 


27 


Constitutional Amendment 31 


6 


26 


Initiative 123 




16 


27 


Constitutional Amendment 32 


8 


26 


Initiative 125 




20 


28 


Initiative 121 


10 


27 


Initiative 132 




22 


29 



Published by Secretary of State Mike Cooney 
P.O. Box 202801- Helena, Montana 59620 - Phone 1-888-884-VOTE (8683) 



Web site 



http://www.mt.gov/sos/soshp.htm 



MONTANA STATE LIBRARY^ 



Mike Cooney 
Secretary of State 

Dear Fellow Montanans: 



3 0864 1001 5389 2 




Montana State Capitol 
PO Box 202801 
Helena, MT 59620-2801 



This Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) has been put together to provide you with information on 
each statewide ballot measure on which you will be voting. Please feel free to mark up your copy 
of the VIP and also remember that you may take it with you into the polls when you go to vote. 

If you are not registered to vote or know someone who is not, remember that October 7th is the 
deadline for registering. Below you will find a voter registration card that you may complete and 
send into your county election administrator. October 7th is the last date to register for the 
November 5th election. 

If you have questions on voter registration or elections in general, please contact my office directly 
on the toll free hot-line I have set up for this specific purpose. That number is 1-888-884-VOTE 
(8683). Large print versions of this pamphlet, as well as an audio version on cassette are available 
through your local library or by calling our toll free number. 

See you at the polls on Tuesday, November 5th! 



Sincerely, 



/iA<j^L^ \Cyc^cj)/u2j^ 



Mike Cooney 
Secretary of State 



FOR OFFICE 
USE ONLY 



Polling Place 



Date 



Pet. 



Ward I Sch 



7. NAME (PLEASE PRINT Last, First, Middle) 



2. COUNTY 



3. ADDRESS WHERE YOU LIVE 

(Street, City, Zip OR Sec, Twp. & Range) 



4.ADDRESS WHERE YOU GET YOUR MAIL 
(if different from #3) 



5. YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER 
(406) 



6. DATE OF BIRTH (month/day/year) 



Hse. 



Sen. 



FD 



HO 



SC 



Reg. » 



7. IF YOU'VE CHANGED YOUR NAME, 
PRINT FORMER NAME 



8. PLACE LAST REGISTERED TO VOTE 

CITY COUNTY STATE 



5. VOTER DECLARATION (Read and sign below) 
I swear/affirm that: a) I'm a U.S. citizen; b) I'll be 
at least 1 8 years old on or before the next 
election; c) I'll have lived in this county for at 
least 30 days before the next election; d) I'm 
neither in a penal institution for a felony 
conviction nor found of unsound mind by a court; 
e) If I don't now meet these qualifications, I will 
by the next election; and f) I've provided true 
information, to the best of my knowledge under 
penalty of perjury. If I've given false information, 
I may be subject to a fine or imprisonment or 
both under Federal or State laws. 



SIGNATURE 



DATE 



You have the 
right to vote if you 
are at least 18 
years old, a U.S. 
citizen, and have 
resided in Montana 
for at least 30 days. 

Your right to 
vote Is secured by 
being properly 
registered in the 
precinct where you 
reside. 

You have the 
right to register to 
vote, either in 
person or by mail, 
simply by 
completing a 
registration card 
and delivering it to 
your county 
Election 
Administrator 
before the deadline 
(30 days prior to 
any election). 

You have the 
right to register to 
vote even if you do 
not yet satisfy the 



age or residency requirements as long as you will by the election. , , ^. .^ j . i ..,<>»,<»,,, 

Your right to vote must be maintained. For state elections , you must participate in at least one general election - the presidential - every four 
years For federal elections , you may not be purged for not voting. You must notify local election officials of any changes you make in your 
name or place of residence. ,, . , . ,. . £.« j_,,. 

Your right to vote in state elections is abridged by missing any presidential election because your registration will be canceled within 60 days. 
In that event, you need to re-register before your right to vote in state elections is resecured. You may still be able to vote in federal elections. 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 30 (C-30) 



How the issue will appear on the ballot 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 30 
An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature 

AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE X, 
SECTION 9 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO REPLACE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE 
BOARD OF REGENTS, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT 
OF EDUCATION AND A STATE EDUCATION COMMISSION; PROVIDING TRANSITIONAL 
INSTRUCTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to eliminate 
the Board of Regents of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the Commissioner of Higher 
Education, and replace them with a Department of Education, with a director appointed by the Governor. It 
would also create an eight-member appointed State Education Commission whose duties would be 
determined by the Legislature. The Board of Public Education, which has general supervision over the 
public school system, would not be eliminated. If approved, the measure would not take full effect until 
January 1,2001. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: Although the current budget for staff in the Office of Commissioner of Higher 
Education is approximately $2.4 million per year, the actual fiscal impact of the constitutional amendment 
cannot be determined at this time, as it would depend upon a budget proposed by the governor and 
approved by the legislature. 

D FOR replacing the board of education, board of regents, and commissioner of higher education with a 
department of education and a state education commission. 

n AGAINST replacing the board of education, board of regents, and commissioner of higher education 
with a department of education and a state education commission. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR C-30 

Governor Racicot not only supports C-30, but has 
participated in preparing the following reasons as 
to why the public should support modifying the 
current governance form of higher education. 

The educational system has been studied twice in 
the last seven years. The "Education Commission 
for the Nineties & Beyond" had nearly 100 public 
meetings and submitted recommendations in 
1 990. The "Governor's Task Force to Renew 
Montana Government" submitted 
recommendations in 1994. 

The general finding, of both studies, has been that 
a lack of continuity and accountability exists in the 
K-12 and higher education system. This is best 
stated by the following excerpt from Governor 
Racicot's response to the Task Force: "A matter of 
concern to many and confusion to most is the 
cumbersome combination of two appointed Boards 
with varying degrees of authority, a Board- 



appointed Commissioner, an elected 
Superintendent who serves the dual role of 
advocate and manager, and a Governor who is 
responsible for a $1 .8 billion general fund budget, 
of which 60% is dedicated to education. The 
arrangement begs the question as to how, when, 
and who is held accountable for the state-wide 
effectiveness and efficiency of public education." 

In essence, the three boards, the Board of Public 
Education, the Board of Regents, and the 
combination of both boards, which is the State 
Board of Education, have operated independently 
of each other for more than 20 years, contrary to 
the intention of the 1972 Constitution. But, more 
to the point, they have operated independently of 
any executive branch agencies, and in the case of 
the Board of Regents, at least somewhat 
independently of the Legislature. 

A specific matter of concern is the absence of a 
statutory responsibility of the Governor to assess 



Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued) 



fully the appropriate line between education policy 
and expenditures required to carry out the duties of 
the Office of Public Instruction or the Board of 
Regents. Also, how does the Governor coordinate 
an educational policy with the budget, as well as 
defend the budget requests of others, when there is 
not a direct line of accountability? 

Montanans want cooperation that results from 
shared vision, joint long-range planning and 
combined resources as well as an education 
governance structure that requires accountability 
and efficiency. This means one point of 
responsibility for budget determinations and 
distribution of funds, as well as for policy 
development and technical program assistance. 
That structure needs to be responsible and 
responsive to the people through their elected 
officials, including school district trustees, 
legislators, and governors. 

The barriers to long-range planning and a unified 
budget are not only constitutional and statutory, 
but they are the result of past practice, tradition 
and philosophy which has long been embedded in 
the education structure. 

The basic question is: "Who should make 
decisions about the administration of higher 
education"? This Constitutional Amendment, C-30 
will allow the public to reclaim ownership, 
responsibility, and authority for the university 
system in Montana by holding the Governor and 
Legislature accountable for their actions. 

The Students Will Benefit. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator John Hertel 
and Representative H.S. "Sonny" Hanson. 



OPPONENTS^ ARGUMENT AGAINST C-30 
CA-30 Would Shift Control to Politicians, Adding 
Costs and Bureaucracy 

Montana's higher education system is a valuable 
asset. Constitutional Amendment 30 would 
endanger that asset by changing the way the higher 
education system is governed. 

CA-30 would bring four years of confusion and 
political deal-making to higher education. CA-30 
would weaken fundamental constitutional 
protections. CA-30 would establish a brand new 



bureaucracy - - and, because CA-30 is vague and 
ill-defined, no one knows for sure what duties and 
powers the new bureaucracy would have. 

CA-30 would also shift power from a citizen board 
and put politicians in charge. This would make our 
University system more costly, more bureaucratic 
and more subject to the whims of politicians. A 
"No" vote on CA-30 will maintain the 
independence and integrity of our University 
system. 

CA-30 Takes Away Existing Constitutional 
Protections 

The current system was established by the 1 972 
Constitutional Convention. The duties and 
responsibilities of the Board of Regents were 
included in the Constitution because of the 
importance of higher education. Under CA-30, we 
would lose that Constitutional protection: higher 
education would be subject to the whims of the 
legislature. 

CA-30 Creates Bureaucracy and Puts Politicians in 
Charge 

CA-30 would create a new "department" of 
education- - an open invitation to bureaucratic 
expansion. CA-30 would also transfer more 
decision-making power to the legislature. The 
legislature is a place of compromise and deal- 
making - - hardly the environment for high quality 
education. 

How you vote on CA-30 is an important decision 
that deserves careful thought. Before you vote, 
consider the following: 

CA-30 Will Cause Confusion and Deal-Making 

Currently the Governor appoints the Board of 
Regents and the Regents appoint the Commissioner 
of Higher Education. CA-30 would create a new 
Education Department with its own commission. 
But the current Board of Regents and 
Commissioner of Higher Education would 
continue to serve until 2001 . The overlapping 
systems would bring confusion, deal-making and 
higher costs. 

CA-30 is Unnecessary. 

The Constitution already provides for a Board of 
Education made up of the Board of Regents and 



Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued) 



the Board of Public Education and headed up by 
the governor. The constitutional purpose of this 
combined board is to coordinate the Kindergarten 
through 12 grades (K-12) and University systems. 
There is no need to meddle with the Constitution. 

CA-30 is Vague 

In the current system, the Board of Regent's role is 
clearly defined by the Constitution. CA-30 would 
let the legislature decided what powers to give the 
new commission. It could change from legislature 
to legislature. 

Will the K-12 system be next? 

CA-30 would create a new "department" to run the 
University system. How long before this new 
department begins lobbying the legislature for 
control of Kindergarten through 12th grade schools 
too? That could lead to a serious loss of local 
control of Montana's grade schools and high 
schools. 

A "No" vote will maintain the independence and 
integrity of our University system and stop 
unnecessary changes to the Montana Constitution. 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Vivian Brooke, 
Representative George Heavy Runner, and 
Shelley Hopkins. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL O F THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSING C-30 

The amendment will add no cost to the operation 
of the University System, as claimed by the 
opponents. Many legislators believe that the 77 
employees in the Office of the Commissioner of 
Higher Education can be reduced. 

The University System wants to maintain complete 
control without any accountability to the public. 
They argue that they do not have constitutional 
protection now because the legislature has "the 
power of the purse" but then turn around and state 
they must retain their present constitutional 
protection. They can't have it both ways. 
The truth of the matter is that the legislature has 
limited "power of the purse" over the University 
System. The Regents can raise student tuition 
anytime and then amend their legislatively 
approved budget to spend that increase. 



The decision -making powers the opponents claim 
are being lost is a deliberate misrepresentation of 
C-30. The legislature will have a broadened 
authority to pass laws governing the system - - 
authority that applies to every other state agency. 
One has to wonder why they believe that an 
agency of government should not be responsible to 
the elected representatives of the people. Its called 
"accountability by checks and balance." 

" Power corr upts. Absolute power corrupts 
absolutely. " This has been clearly demonstrated by 
acts of the Regents. Their uncontrolled financial 
management and disposing of public lands, are 
two clear examples. 

K-1 2 Education does not have the constitutional 
authority that the Regents do. K-12 local school 
boards work with the legislature and governor for 
the benefit of the student. 



OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING C-30 

The statement of the supporters of CA-30 does 
not speak to this initiative. It makes a case for 
legislation that was defeated by the 1 995 
Legislature. 

Proponents say CA-30 will allow the public to 
reclaim control of the university system. Actually, 
CA-30 will allow politicians to take control of the 
university system by eliminating a citizen board 
and creating a new department of state 
government. This would transfer decision-making 
power from the citizens to the legislature. As a 
place of deal-making and compromise, the 
legislature is hardly the thoughtful and deliberate 
atmosphere desired to plan for quality education. 

When CA-30 goes fully into effect in 2001, Marc 
Racicot will no longer be our governor. Since we 
cannot predict future governors' attitudes toward 
education, we should not deprive the higher 
education system of its constitutional safeguards 
and independence from political maneuvering. 

Supporters say that CA-30 will address 
continuity and accountability issues in the K-12 
system. K-12 is not even mentioned in CA-30. 
Eliminating local control of elementary education, 
however, may be the next target. 

The Constitution provides for a Board of 
Education chaired by the Governor and made up 



Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued) 



of the Board of Regents and the Board of Public 
Education, both of which are appointed by the 
governor. The constitutional purpose of this 
combined board is to coordinate the K-12 and the 
university system. CA-30 eliminates this board, 



thereby eliminating all coordination. 

Please don't meddle with the Constitution. It 
works. 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 31 (C-31) 

How the issue will appear on the ballot 



' CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 31 
An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature 

AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 
VIM SECTION 13, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW STATE COMPENSATION 
INSURANCE FUND MONEY TO BE INVESTED IN PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL STOCK. 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to allow 
monies in the state workers' compensation insurance fund to be invested in private corporate capital stock. 
Currently, the Constitution prohibits such investment of public funds except for monies contributed to 
retirement funds. Like pension funds, workers' compensation investments would be managed by the State 
Board of Investments in accordance with recognized standards of financial management. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: If the Montana Board of Investments had invested the maximum of 15% of the State 
Fund's assets in common stock in FY95, additional income would have been generated. The Montana 
Common Stock Pool twenty-year return average was 14.78% compared to the State Fund's FY95 return of 
10.13%. 

D FOR allowing state compensation insurance fund money to be invested in private corporate capital 
stock. 

D AGAINST allowing state compensation insurance fund money to be invested in private corporate 
capital stock. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR C-31 

Over time, higher investment earnings on the 
assets of the State Compensation Insurance Fund 
( State Fund) can help ensure money is available to 
pay benefits to workers and help hold down 
premiums paid by employers. While past 
performance is no guarantee of future results on 
any type of investment, the average annual total 
return on corporate stock has been substantially 
higher than on bonds for nearly 100 years. 

Currently, the Board of Investments invests the 
State Fund's money solely in bonds. If approved, 
this referendum would allow the Board to invest a 
portion of the State Fund's assets in corporate 
stock, with the remainder continuing to be 



invested in bonds. A related statute, effective on 
passage of this referendum, would limit the 
investment in corporate stock to 15% of the State 
Fund's assets. The 15% would be invested in the 
same stocks in which a portion of the pension 
funds for state employees and teachers is currently 
invested. Over half of all state funds throughout the 
country have a portion of their assets invested in 
corporate stocks. Passing this measure should help 
hold down state workers compensation premiums. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Tom Keating, 
Representative David Ewer, and Teresa Olcott 
Cohea. 



Constitutional Amendment 31 (continued) 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST C-31 

The State Compensation insurance Fund was set 
up to help those who were injured or suffered loss 
from injury on the job. Since injuries don't happen 
on an even schedule, there are highs and lows as 
far as the need for cash is concerned, and liquidity 
is required to pay claims on a day-to-day basis. To 
meet these varying needs money has been held in 
a type of reserve to make payments through the 
high demand times. The drafters of the Constitution 
were wise in not allowing these funds to be put 
into speculative investments where the principle 
could be lost as happened in Los Angeles, counties 
in Maryland and Ohio. 

The need to keep insurance rates down 
increases the use of any reserves; in fact, the fund 
was not set up to "make money" any amount 
above a reasonable reserve should be used to 
reduce rates to businesses. Nineteen ninety-four 
was not a profitable year for the stock market. 
Common stock should be viewed as a long-term 
investment, not intended for funds that may be 
needed at any time. In addition, the state fund is 
under consideration for privatization, and a solid, 
conservative investment portfolio (presently 
returning 10.13% in 1995) should be left in tack. 

Who picks up the shortfall when losses occur 
or stock needs to be sold in a low market? First the 
employer pays until he or she starts taking his/her 
business out of State; only a few years ago Workers 
Compensation Rates was one of the main reasons 
for businesses leaving the state. Then the State goes 
to the taxpayer, the Old Fund Liability Tax is a 
perfect example. We can learn from our own 
history and that of other governments. The funds 
held in reserve need to be held as a trust and not 
available for creative speculation like personal 
funds. 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Daryl Toews, 
Representative Betty Lou Kasten, and 
Representative Ray Peck. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OE THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSING C-31 

The State Fund has sufficient liquid ity to pay 
current claims and rese rves for manv years. 

Currently, the State Fund has $51 7,000,000- - 
$36,000,000 cash and $481,000,000 invested in 
bonds. Approximately $90,000,000 per year is 
used to pay claims and expenses, with the rest held 



in surplus and reserves. Under C31, only 15% 
($78,000,000) would be invested in stocks, with 
the remainder still invested in bonds. Since claims 
are paid out over many years, it makes sense to 
have long-term investments that match long-term 
costs. 

Diversified portfolios decrease r isk and increase 
potential returns. 

Historical data for the last 70 years shows that a 
portfolio comprised of 1 5% stock and 85% bond 
had kss risk than a 100% bond portfolio aod 
higher average annual returns. Orange County 
suffered losses because it invested in bonds and 
speculative interest-rate derivatives, nfil in stocks. 
1 994 was a difficult year for both stocks and 
bonds, with bonds losing 2.9% in value. Stocks, 
however, were positive for the year (+ 1 .3%), so a 
diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds did better 
than a 100% bond portfolio. Over the last 20 
years, the Board of Investments has had an average 
annual return of 14.78% on the stock portion of 
the state's pension funds. 

Increased returns help hold down emplovers' 

costs. 

By law, higher returns on the State Fund must be 

used in setting workers compensation rates for 

employers. Allowing the State Fund to invest a 

small portion of its assets in stocks will provide 

greater potential returns and diversification. 



OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL O F THE ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING C-31 

Stocks have out performed bonds, but will 
enough be gained through the riskier investment? 
In the past 70 years (1925-95) 20 years were down 
periods. The historical average return has been 
10.14%. The State Bonds experience for equities 
over 69 years has been 10.2% annual return for 
large company stocks. Worker's Comp Fund 1 995 
return was 10.13%. 

The fund is managed as a short to intermediate 
term (10 Yr.), tax exempt account. It is only since 
1 993 that there has been substantial reserves over 
the short term liquidity requirement to even 
consider different investments, since then we have 
shown restraint in our investment philosophy. 
Many agree that the future will probably tend more 
toward the average rather than the highs. 

Is this really the time for more risk? 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 32 (C-32) 



How the issue will appear on the ballot 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 32 
An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature 

AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, 
SECTION 6 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL MEET 
IN REGULAR SESSION BIENNIALLY IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS OR IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS; AND 
PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. The Montana Constitution currently requires the State 
Legislature to meet in odd-numbered years for no longer than 90 days. This proposal would amend the 
Constitution to require that the Legislature meet only once every two years. This would allow the Legislature 
to hold its regular sessions in either even-numbered or odd-numbered years, but not both. It would retain 
the 90-day limit for regular legislative sessions. If passed, the measure would take effect January 1, 1998. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: There would be no additional fiscal impact, although if the legislature chooses to meet 
in even-numbered years, the expense for the biennial session would be moved forward one year. 

D FOR restricting the legislature to meeting in regular session for 90 days in either even-numbered or odd- 
numbered years, but not both. 

D AGAINST restricting the legislature to meeting in regular session for 90 days in either even-numbered or 
odd-numbered years, but not both. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR C-32 
Introduction 

If you want more responsible government and 
greater citizen involvement in public decision- 
making, you should vote FOR C-32. Under existing 
requirements, the legislature meets for 90 days in 
"odd-numbered years" - - only two months after the 
November elections. The even-year option 
presented by C-32 will give citizens, small 
businesses and legislators more time to understand 
the impacts proposed laws and policies will have 
on our work, our taxes, and our Montana way of 
life. 

Drawbacks to Current System 

Too little time to: 

• Organize legislature, appoint committees, have 
proposed legislation drafted 

• Review proposed laws, taxes and policies and 
notify public of hearings and committee 
action 

• Review Governor's proposed budget, 
government spending levels, taxation 

Result 

Current system produces a hectic process that 

effectively excludes most citizens and small 



businesses and makes it very difficult for the 
average Montanan to have meaningful input to 
important public policy decisions. 

Benefits provided by C-32 

C-32 would amend the constitution to allow the 
legislature to meet for 90 days in even-numbered 
years, but does not allow for annual sessions. This 
would give the legislature as much as a year to: 

• organize the legislative session and prepare 
legislation 

• submit proposed legislation to the public for 
review and comment 

• schedule legislative hearings well in advance to 
promote citizen participation 

Result 

Gives all Montanans a much greater opportunity 
to thoughtfully consider the benefits and 
drawbacks of any proposed new law, budgetary, 
or taxation proposal and let their elected officials 
know how they feel about important issues. The 
current system severely hinders the opportunity 
to change government in response to the will of 
the people. 

This proposal is widely supported by members of 



Constitutional Amendment 32 (continued) 



both major political parties and many who have 
tried to take part in the legislative process. If you 
think it is important for citizens and small 
businesses to be heard in the halls of the state 
Capitol, then please vote FOR C-32 and bring 
good planning, better process and more 
meaningful public participation in government to 
Montana. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Steve Benedict 
and Representative Larry Hal Grinde. 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST C-32 

CI-32 is a bad idea because it will create more 
problems than it can ever hope to solve. 

Having the legislature meet in even numbered 
years instead of meeting in odd numbered years 
will have the following negative consequences: 

1. Elections will lose their purpose. Instead of 
allowing the democratic process to bring about 
needed and expected changes after the election is 
over, voters will have to wait for more than a year 
after they have voted a slate of legislators into 
office for those legislators to carry out the will of 
the people; 

2. Even worse, in the meantime, lobbyists and 
special interests will have had plenty of time to 
make their case with the new legislators so that 
they are likely to forget why they were even 
elected in the first place; 

3. When legislators finally do meet, it will be in 
an election year. Many legislators will then be 
reluctant to take any tough stands on issues for fear 
of alienating voters or they might well spend large 
amounts of time posturing for campaign purposes; 

4. Legislative leaders will have much more 
control over the entire legislative process because 
the additional time between the election and the 
start of the session will allow them to manipulate 
committee memberships, caucus positions, and 
timing of hearings so as to further their own 
agendas; 

5. Because the whole idea will eventually fail, 
the Constitution will either have to amended to 
direct the legislature to only meet in odd 
numbered years or the legislature is likely to meet 
every year, in both odd and even numbered years. 



In other words, we are voting now for annual 
sessions under the guise of a vote for even 
numbered year sessions. Annual sessions might be 
a good idea but never in such a back door or 
unintentional fashion. 

We should not tamper with the Montana 
Constitution to try out this questionable scheme. If 
this is really the great idea its proponents claim that 
it is, then we should try it once or twice on an 
experimental basis without amending the 
constitution. We can do that under current law. 
Until we're sure it's broke, let's not fix it! 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Fred Van 
Valkenburg, Representative Carolyn Squires, and 
Sheila Rice. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSING C-32 

Opponents to C-32 are grasping at straws to 
maintain "politics as usual" and special interest 
domination of the legislative process. C-32 will 
give citizens and small businesses more 
opportunity to communicate with those they elect 
regarding proposed legislation, taxation and 
regulatory issues. 

With C-32, legislators would remain in their home 
towns after the elections and be available to 
discuss the issues with local citizens. They can 
then produce sound long-term policy based on the 
collective wisdom of all Montanans. 

Opponents also fear having the legislature meet in 
an election year. But having the actions of the 
legislature fresh in the minds of the voters is likely 
to increase, not decrease, accountability to the 
citizens. 

C-32 does not mandate even year sessions, it only 
presents the legislature with an option . Supporters 
of C-32 believe this measure will benefit all 
Montanans by providing citizens and small 
businesses with more input to important public 
policy decisions. If, for any reason, this does not 
occur, no further changes are needed to return to 
the current system. 

Finally, C-32 specifically prohibits annual sessions. 

Opponents are misleading the public by suggesting 
otherwise. If you want to strengthen citizen 



Constitutional Amendment 32 (continued) 



involvement and weaken special interest influence 
in the legislature, please vote FOR C-32. 



OPPONENTS' RFBIJTTAL O F THE ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING C-32 

The proponents of CI-32 make their best 
argument when they say that Montanans have too 
little time to offer input on proposed legislation 
under the current system. However, they make 
virtually no argument as to why Montanans need 
more than a year to prepare for the legislative 
session. 

Under the current system, the legislature could 
meet for a short period of time in January of an odd 
numbered year, recess for a month or so to allow 
for more public input and still finish its work by 
April or May of the same year. 

Regardless the proponents' claims, annual 



sessions are inevitable if they succeed. First, 
legislators will be working virtually full time during 
even numbered years while the "new" public input 
is taking place. Then, inevitably, some emergency 
will arise, which will bring about a call for a 
special session. Finally, everyone will concede that 
as long as legislators are working full time and 
special sessions are taking place regularly, annual 
sessions make more sense. 

This proposal is not as widely supported as the 
proponents would have you believe. It has been 
rejected in the legislature twice before and on both 
occasions opposed by a bi-partisan group of 
experienced legislators. 

Don't be fooled. CI-32 is no panacea to all that 
is wrong in the legislative process. The fact is that 
this proposed amendment to the constitution could 
well do more harm than good. 



INITIATIVE 121 (M21) 

How the issue will appear on the ballot 



INITIATIVE 121 
A law proposed by initiative petition 

Since 1991, Montana has followed the minimum wage set by Congress, which is currently $4.25 per hour. 
This initiative would amend Montana law to re-establish a state minimum wage, unless a higher amount is 
set by federal law. The minimum wage, excluding tips, would be: 



; and 



The minimum wage rate for businesses with $1 10,000 or less in annual gross sales would remain $4.00 per 
hour. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: Employees receiving an increase in the minimum wage may pay more income tax. 
However, businesses paying the increased wage are allowed to deduct the increase in full, resulting in a 
decrease in income and corporation tax revenue. The overall net impact is estimated to be negligible. 

D FOR gradually raising the minimum hourly wage in Montana from $4.25 to $6.25 by the year 2000, 
unless higher wages are required by federal law. 

D AGAINST gradually raising the minimum hourly wage in Montana from $4.25 to $6.25 by the year 
2000, unless higher wages are required by federal law. 




10 



Initiative 121 (continued) 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMFNT FOR 1-121 

RFWARD WORK ! Vote FOR gradually raising 
Montana's minimum wage 50<t a year from today's 
$4.25 an hour to $6.25 an hour in the year 2000, 
four years from now : 



. $4.75 per hour beginning January 1 , 1 997 
. $5.25 per hour beginning January 1 , 1 998 
. $5.75 per hour beginning January 1, 1999 
. $6.25 per hour beginning January 1 , 2000. 



and 



REWARD WORK ! The purpose of the minimum 
wage is to assure the maintenance of the minimum 
standard of living necessary for the health, 
efficiency and well-being of workers. A person 
working full-time at today's minimum wage, $4.25 
an hour, makes $8,840 per year. That's not 
enough to lift a family of 2 out of poverty. Families 
can't survive on $4.25. 

REWARD WORK ! 60% of those who earn 
minimum wage are women. Nearly half of all 
minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older. 
They provide 45% of their family's total earnings. 
They represent hard-working Montana families on 
the edge of economic catastrophe. 

REWARD WORK ! There has been nfi increase in 
the minimum wage since 1991 -- 5 years. There 
was no. increase in the minimum wage from 1981 
to 1 990 - - 9 years. To equal the value it had in 
1968, the minimum wage would have to be $6.24 
an hour - - ri ght now . 

REWARD WORK ! 101 economists have endorsed 
a modest increase in the minimum wage, saying it 
would have little, if any, effect on job 
opportunities. Respected economists from Harvard 
and Princeton Universities have studied the impact 
of a minimum wage increase on jobs and found 
that the increase did not reduce employment. 

RFWARD WORK! CREATE lOBS ! One study by 
economists from Harvard and Princeton 
Universities examined the effects of minimum 
wage increases on the employees of fast food 
restaurants in Texas. They looked at restaurants 
with different levels of starting wages to see if the 
increase caused job losses at restaurants which 
paid lower starting wages. Their findings suggest 
that the employment effects of a minimum wage 
increase, if anything, seemed to be positive rather 
than negative. 



REWARD WORK! MONTANANS EARN IT ! 
Reports from the Corporation for Enterprise 
Development have praised the work ethic of 
Montana's citizens and the quality of our work 
force. But they give Montana a "D" for economic 
performance because of poor wages (the third 
lowest in the nation!) and declines in health 
coverage. 

RFWARD WORK! VOTE FOR FAIRNESS ! The 
lowest paid workers earn less now than they did in 
the 1 970's. The wages of middle class workers 
have barely kept pace with the increased costs of 
goods and services. Meanwhile, the wages of the 
wealthiest workers have soared. In 1980, the 
boss's average paycheck was 42 times the pay of 
the ordinary factory worker. By 1 995, the boss 
made 141 times what the factory worker did. 

WORKING MONTANANS DESERVE A WAGE 
INCREASE . Vote FOR gradually raising Montana's 
minimum wage. RFWARD WORK ! 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Sue Bartlett, 
Gene Fenderson, and Representative Dan 
Harrington. 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST 1-121 

1-121 is a huge 47% increase in Montana's 
minimum wage. This "Montana only" mandate of a 
$6.25/hr wage will hurt small businesses that are 
the backbone of our local economy. It will make it 
much harder for the disadvantaged, less skilled or 
less educated to get jobs, pushing or locking them 
into the welfare system. 

Small Businesses Will Be Hurt. Many small 
businesses have barely survived a 300% increase 
in workers compensation, huge increases in health 
care benefits, plus an explosion of regulations 
related to being an employer. Small businesses are 
paying more each year for every job they create. 
Too much of this money is lost to regulations and 
taxes instead of going home in workers paychecks. 

The only way many small businesses have to cope 
with mandated costs increases is to eliminate jobs 
and/or reduce other benefits to current workers. 

Job Creation Will Slow Down. A 1993 survey of 
American economists revels that 77% believe a 
minimum wage hike will lead to a decline in 



11 



Initiative 121 (continued) 



employment opportunities. A few economists have 
said a small increase in the minimum wage will not 
hurt the economy. These discussions have been 
focused on a 90 cent increase. 1-121 is a 2 
DOLLAR increase. 

Low Income and Unskilled Workers Will Be Hurt. 
The Employment Policy Institute has conducted 
studies which have concluded that increases in 
minimum wage cause minority teens, welfare 
mothers, and other lower skilled workers to be 
displaced in the workplace by middle income 
teens who are lured to these jobs by the higher 
wage. 

People on Fixed Income Will Be Hurt. Mandated 
costs show up in the prices you pay for consumer 
goods. Prices charged by local businesses will go 
up to pay for this huge increase in mandated 
wages. These price increases will be hardest on the 
elderly and others trying to live on fixed incomes. 

Montana Loses National Economic Competition. 
This mandate will apply only to businesses in 
Montana. Montana businesses will not only have 
to pay the new federal minimum wage, but 1-121 
will force them to pay more than twice the federal 
increase. 

Cost To Taxpayers. This mandate will affect local 
government programs many of which hire young 
people to oversee recreation programs. Many cities 
have struggled to keep these programs, this 
minimum wage mandate will force these cities to 
increase taxes or discontinue these jobs. 

Montana businesses are not the multi-national 
corporations who have received publicity for 
downsizing while making record profits. Small 
manufacturers based in Montana may not be able 
to pass along this mandated wage increase and 
have said this could cause them to lose contracts. 
Montana business owners are our neighbors and 
friends who work hard and treat employees with 
respect. 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by David Owen, Brad 
Griffin, and Stuart Doggett. 



ppQPnNFNTS' RFBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSING 1-121 

RFWARD WORK! Vote for GRADUALLY raising 
Montana's minimum wage from $4.25 an hour in 



1996 to $6.25 an hour in the year 2000, FOUR 
YEARS from now. The yearly increases would be: 

. $4.75 per hour on January 1 , 1 997; 
. $5.25 per hour on January 1 , 1 998; 
. $5.75 per hour on January 1 , 1 999; and 
. $6.25 per hour on January 1, 2000. 

HIGHER PRICES? Prices have never stopped going 
up. It's wages that are staying the same or falling. 
From 1 991 to 1 996, there was qq increase in the 
minimum wage, but the cost of living rose 11%. 
From 1981 to 1990, there was nO. increase in the 
minimum wage, but the cost of living rose 48%. 
Families can't survive on $4.25 - - and they can't 
buy the products that small Montana businesses 
make and sell. 

MONTANA ALONE? 10 States have already set 
their minimum wage higher than $4.25 an hour. 
Oregon's minimum wage is $4.75 today . 
Washington's minimum wage is $4.90 today . 
Massachusetts' minimum wage is $4.75 today and 
will rise to $5.25 on January 1. 1997 . Montana will 
not be alone when this proposal passes. Instead, 
we will join a growing list of States that know we 
must RFWARD WORK ! 

WORKING MONTANANS DFSFRVF A LIVABLE 
WAGE! Vote FOR GRADUALLY raising Montana's 
minimum wage. RFWARD WORK ! 



OPPONENTS' RFBUTTAL O F THF ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING 1-121 

It does not reward work to pass a law that reduces 
working hours, cuts benefits, and creates fewer 
new jobs. 

This increase is not gradual. It is too much, too 
fast. 

1-121 goes beyond new federal increases. Small 
businesses will face S increases in 4 vears. This 
means fewer new jobs, lower benefits, and more 
people on welfare. 

The proponent's claim that minimum wage 
workers provide 45% of their family's income 
includes single adults with no dependents as 
families. 35% of minimum wage workers live with 
their parents. 

A strong economy rewards work. From 1981 to 
1990 when there was no increase in the minimum 



12 



Initiative 121 (continued) 



wage, the number of minimum wage workers 
declined from 7.8 million (8% of workforce) to 3.2 
million (3% of workforce). 

When 22,000 economists were surveyed, 77% 
(16,940) said minimum wage increases lead to job 
losses. 101 economists is a very small minority. 

The Texas "study" was conducted by the same 
economist who did a discredited study in New 
Jersey. That study has been rejected because 
researchers used phone calls to determine 



employee counts. Actual payroll records proved 
there was a 5% job loss. 

Comparisons to the past are misleading. Years ago 
the minimum wage didn't apply small businesses 
like retail stores or restaurants. In the past there 
weren't mandated employee protections (work 
comp) driving up the cost of providing jobs. 

The last thing Montana should do is derail the 
potential for small businesses to create new jobs. 
1-121 does not reward work. It makes work 



INITIATIVE 122 (1-122) 

How the issue will appear on the ballot 



INITIATIVE 122 
A law proposed by initiative petition 

State law currently allows mine discharges to be diluted after release into state waters in determining 
whether water quality standards are met. This initiative prohibits issuance of new metal mine permits, 
exploration licenses, or major amendments to cyanide-leach mine permits if mine discharges exceed existing 
water quality standards at the point of release into state waters. It would require treatment, before dilution or 
release, to: 

► remove 80% of each carcinogen, toxin, and nutrient; or 

► meet existing state water quality standards for carcinogens, toxins, iron, and manganese, whichever 
provides greater water quality protection. 

If passed, the measure would take effect immediately. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: This initiative increases water treatment requirements and associated costs for certain 
discharges from some metal mines and exploration operations. Some new mines and mine expansions may 
no longer be technologically or economically viable, resulting in reduced employment and tax revenue from 
the mining industry. 

D FOR requiring the removal of specified levels of carcinogens, toxins, metals and nutrients prior to 
dilution or release of mine discharges into state waters. 

D AGAINST requiring the removal of specified levels of carcinogens, toxins, metals and nutrients prior to 
dilution or release of mine discharges into state waters. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR 1-122 

Clean water is Montana's most important natural 
resource. It is the lifeblood of our most basic and 
largest industry, agriculture, and it is the anchor for 
our second largest industry, tourism. It is our 
greatest recreational resource, it determines the . 
quality of our everyday life, and it is essential for 
optimal public health. The amount and availability 



of clean water will define the future of Montana. 

The first provision in the Montana Constitution 
imposes on the state government and each citizen 
the duty to maintain and improve a clean and 
healthful environment for present and future 
generations. It also declares that the use of all of 
our water shall be held to be a public use. Finally, 



13 



Initiative 122 (continued) 



it directs the legislature to protect environmental 
life support systems and to 

prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of 
natural resources. 

Prior to 1995, the legislature and the state 
administration had enacted and enforced water 
quality statutes that carried out these constitutional 
directives. But in response to pressure from the 
gold mining industry, the 1995 legislature slashed 
our water quality standards and controls to 
accommodate several mining ventures proposed 
near the Blackfoot River, the headwaters of the 
Yellowstone, and the Clark Fork River. The 
purpose of the Clean Water Initiative is to close the 
loopholes opened by that legislation and to restore 
the water quality protection we enjoyed and relied 
upon before this ill-advised action to favor a 
narrow, out-of-state special interest group. 

Over 40,000 Montanans signed the petition for 
Initiative 1-1 22 so they could have the opportunity 
to vote on keeping Montana's water clean. 

When the initiative is approved, the law will 
prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality 
from issuing a permit for a new precious or base 
metal mine, amending a cyanide- leach mine 
permit, or granting or extending a metals 
exploration license unless the permit or license 
requires the "effective removal" of carcinogens, 
toxins and other pollutants from water before its 
discharge into Montana surface or subsurface 
water. "Effective removal" means removal of 80% 
of pollutants, or removal of enough pollutants to 
comply with general state water quality standards, 
whichever would supply the cleanest water. This 
would 

effectively repeal provisions in the 1995 legislation 
that allow mining companies to discharge 
untreated wastewaters by simply diluting them 
with clean waters until they meet minimum 
standards. 

A vote for the Clean Water Initiative is a vote for 
the health, lifestyle, prosperity and enjoyment of 
this generation of Montanans and for the security 
and well-being of future 

generations. A vote against 1-1 22 is a vote for short- 
sighted, short-term gain for very few Montanans 
and a bonanza for an even smaller number of out- 
of-state exploiters. Our Constitution tells us it's our 
streams, our lakes, and our drinking water, and it's 
our duty to protect them. 1-1 22 is an important step 
in that direction. 



This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Kathy Hadley, Donna 
Metcalf, and Gordon R. Bennett. 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST 1-122 

The promoters of 1-1 22 have cleverly titled it the 
"Clean Water Initiative", suggesting that anyone 
opposed to it is opposed to clean water. 

Ridiculous! EVERYONE WANTS CLEAN WATER. 

The problem is that 1-122 would not affect 
Montana's water quality, but it would affect 
Montana! 

1-122, the misnamed "clean water" initiative, 
would: 

• Cost Montana People their jobs. 

• Erode the tax base. 

• Punish one single industry. 

But it would have no effect whatever on Montana's 
water quality standards! 

1-122 DAMAGES MONTANA'S ECONOMY 

A recent national study indicated that Montana's 
economy performs poorly due to a sluggish job 
market with average annual pay now ranking third 
worst nationally. 

Yet, in spite of that, the real goal of the authors of 
1-1 22 is to shut down Montana's mining industry. 
They feel mining is not important enough to 
protect. 

1-122 would: 

• Result in the loss of more than 2,700 good 
paying jobs in Montana. 

• Cost state and local governments more than 
$400 million in lost tax income over the next 
1 5 years - - taxes that support our schools and 
provide needed services. 

If 1-1 22 passes, more than $1 billion in planned 
Montana investments will not take place. 

1-122 IS A RADICAL MEASURE 

• The water quality treatment requirements that 
1-122 would establish are so stringent that 



14 



Initiative 122 (continued) 



modern technology does not have the 
equipment to measure them! 

• 1-1 22 is so radical that if it were applied to 
homes in Montana, a glass of drinking water 
nearly three times purer than EPA standards 
could not be poured into state waters without 
first treating it, so many homes would be 
required to have a water treatment plant to 
treat even tap water before you let it go down 
the drain into state waters! 

• Septic systems in Montana's households 
would not comply with 1-1 22! 

WHO'S NEXT? 

Promoters of 1-122 feel the mining industry is 
not important enough to protect. They 
discount the employees (and their families), 
suppliers, retailers and others whose 
livelihoods depend, wholly or partially, on 
mining. 

SO WHO WILL BE NEXT? 
TIMBER? RANCHERS? FARMERS? 
CITIES, TOWNS and COUNTIES? 

Publicly, the promoters have indicated 1-122 
was the first step and the next targets would 
be decided after the November election. 

If 1-122 passes and the next target is 
municipal sewer plants, as the promoters 
have hinted, cities and towns will be forced 
to comply with unnecessary but stricter 
water regulations costing Montana taxpayers 
millions of dollars! 

1-122 IS A BAD LAW 

1-122 is a badly-written law that conflicts with 
existing water quality laws. Legally, it is vague, 
ambiguous and perhaps unconstitutional. Montana 
should not be stuck with bad laws. 

The water quality standards recently set by the 
Montana Legislature and signed by the Governor 
should be given a chance to work first - - before 
changing them with an extreme measure promoted 
by environmental groups. 

The former director of the Montana Department of 
Natural Resources recently said: 



"1-122 upsets Montana's regulatory balance and 
defies common sense!" 

We urge you to VOTE NO OSf 1-122 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Alan L. Joscelyn, 
Jerome Anderson, Senator Lorents Grosfield, and 
Representative Scott J. Orr. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 

OPPOSING 1-122 

Do metal mines pollute Montana's water? 

Yes. Every large gold mine in Montana has violated 

water quality laws in the last 10 years. In July, the 

foreign-owned Zortman mine paid $37 million in 

fines and clean-up costs. More than 2300 miles of 

our streams have been harmed by mining 

operations. 

Is this pollution dangerous to children, public 
health, and wildlife? 

Yes. Mine pollutants include cyanide, acid, arsenic 
and other toxins and cancerousing substances. 

Is keeping water clean a radical idea? 

No. 1-122 is sponsored by 40,000 Montanans who 
signed petitions to put it on the ballot. 

Will 1-122 affect agriculture, municipalities or 
other industries? 

No. Governor Racicot's briefing paper states that 
1-122 will affect only certain large, metal mines. 

Is 1-122 a good law? 

Yes. 1-122 will help overcome bad law and restore 
Montana's high water quality. It requires new and 
expanding mining operations to remove 
carcinogens, toxins and heavy metals from their 
discharge BEFORE it goes into Montana's waters. 
Foreign mining corporations who created large 
loopholes in our water quality laws are spending 
millions to defeat 1-1 22. 

Will 1-122 cost jobs? 

No. Use of available treatment technology will 
create jobs. The pipefitters and other labor 
organizations have endorsed 1-1 22 because it is 
good for jobs. 

Will taxes go up if 1-122 passes? 

No. There is ample evidence that taxpayers pay for 
pollution clean-up; pollution prevention is sound 



15 



Initiative 122 (continued) 



tax policy. 

Protecting our clean water will assure a healthy 
future for Montana's families and especially our 
children. Vote YES for 1-122. 



OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING 1-122 

Promoters of 1-1 22 say that if you don't agree 
with thenn, you're shortsighted, oppose good 
health, a decent lifestyle, prosperity and are 
heedless of future generations. They want to save 
us from ourselves. They know best. 

The 1995 legislature did not "slash" the state's 
water quality standards. 

1-122 does not reinstate water laws in place 
before 1 995. . 

Current Montana water quality laws: 
are stricter than those of any of our 
western neighbors. 

apply equally to all: Agriculture, business, 
municipalities and, yes, mining. 

If the promoters were really concerned about 
water quality, 1-1 22 would apply to all. It doesn't 
because they aren't concerned about water quality; 



they're interested in outlawing mining. 

1-1 22 violates common sense! 

Does it treat all dischargers fairly and equitably? 
NO! 

Can all requirements: 
be achieved? NO! 
be measured or detected? NO! 
be enforced? NO! 



Does it protect existing jobs? N 

Is there a balance between jobs and the 
environment? NO! 

1-1 22's promoters casually dismiss the thousands 
of mineworkers, suppliers, retailers (and their 
families) who depend wholly or in part on the 
mining industry as "a very few Montanans." If 1-122 
passes, who'll be the next expendable "few 
Montanans?" 

We agree that clean water is a most important 
natural resource. Today, Montana's water is among 
the cleanest in the nation, and we all want to keep 
it that way. But we must maintain the current 
balance between environmental and human needs. 
1-1 22 would upset that balance to the detriment of 
all Montanans. Please vote NO on 1-122. 



INITIATIVE 123 (1-123) 

How the issue will appear on the ballot 



INITIATIVE 123 
A law proposed by initiative petition 

This initiative would allow any individual or organization to bring a lawsuit against persons who engage in 
unlawful threats or intimidation that cause injury or harm. It would also prohibit the filing of "nonconsensual 
common-law liens," defined as claims against real or personal property that are: 

► not allowed by state or federal law, 

► not consented to by the property owner, 

► not imposed by a court, or 

► not commonly used in commercial transactions. 

It would allow individuals or organizations against whose property such liens are filed to recover court costs 
and damages against the person who filed the lien. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: The proposed initiative would have no fiscal impact on state or local governments. , 
Individuals filing the nonconsensual common-law lien would be liable for the costs of removing the lien. 



16 



Initiative 123 (continued) 



D FOR allowing lawsuits for civil damages against those who commit unlawful threats or intimidation, and 
prohibiting the filing of false liens against property. 

D AGAINST allowing lawsuits for civil damages against those who commit unlawful threats or 
intimidation, and prohibiting the filing of false liens against property. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR 1-123 
The Problem 

Montanans are painfully aware of the danger 
presented by anti-government extremist 
organizations and hate groups, like the Freemen, 
and their escalating attacks on government officials 
and others. 

1-123 was created to give all Montanans an 
opportunity to stand up and say "NO!" to these 
extremist groups and individuals. 

These extremist organizations have deliberately 
singled out our justice system, public officials and 
law enforcement as their main targets. 

Their favorite tactic is intimidation - - in the form of 
escalating and frightening threats of physical 
violence, and costly and time-consuming 
harassment through the filings of false liens. 

Threats and Intimidation 

Examples of extremist attempts to intimidate our 
state through threats of violence have occurred 
repeatedly. 

• Over a traffic violation involving a freeman 
linked to the militia, a Bitterroot County 
municipal court judge was given an 
ultimatum that if she did not dismiss the traffic 
case, she would be subject to trial by the 
extremist group and told that her home would 
be shot up and that she would be hanged. On 
two separate occasions, she had to send her 
children out of their home to live elsewhere, 
for fear for their lives. 

• After militia members were arrested and held 
in custody in Roundup as suspects with the 
intention to kidnap, try and hang a District 
Judge, the County jail and County Attorney's 
office received hundreds of threatening phone 
calls against the Sheriff and his deputies and 
against the County Attorney Staff. 



• The Garfield County Attorney was told by 
Freemen that "they weren't going to 
bother building a gallows. They were just 
going to let him swing from the bridge." A 
million dollar bounty on him was proclaimed 
on a poster with his picture, saying "Wanted 
Dead or Alive." 

• And this has happened to many others. 

False Liens 

The extremists' attempts at harassing Montana 
public officials and citizens by placing false liens 
on their property has proven to be costly and 
disruptive to both the individuals and their private 
property rights. 

Initiative 123 

The Montana Anti-Intimidation Act of 1996 strikes 
at the heart of these extremist tactics. 

• Initiative 123 adds the opportunity for a victim 
of threatened violence - - whether public official 
or Montana citizen - - to bring civil action, in 
addition to criminal sanctions, against those 
extremists threatening violence. 

• Initiative 1 23 works with current laws to allow 
the District Court to effectively remove false 
liens, providing that legal and court costs as well 
as any damages can be assessed against the 
extremist filing the false lien. 

Stand Up and Be Counted 

We cannot remain silent to the ominous threat 
presented by the hundreds of members of militia 
groups, the Freemen, white supremacists and other 
hate groups active against civil society. 

We cannot remain silent as silence is consent! 

Initiative 123 allows Montanans collectively to 
stand up and make their voices heard. And to do it 
at the ballot box. 



17 



Initiative 123 (continued) 



In Montana, saving "NO" to extre mists is "AS 
FASY AS 1-2-:^" --pass In itiative 123! 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Judge Martha Bethel 
and John Bohlman. 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST 1-123 

This measure does too much. It encourages 
widespread litigation. 

It would permit convicted criminals to sue the 
members of their juries. 

It would permit law suits against citizens and 
public officials by the very extremists it pretends to 
combat. 

This measure targets anti-abortion 
demonstrators. Imagine your parish being sued 
because one of its members said the rosary aloud 
outside an abortion clinic and a clinic staff member 
or patient claimed he or she was "harassed by 
intimidation." 

Anti-abortion demonstrators are not alone. 
Under this measure, either side could sue the other 
repeatedly on the theory that he or she was 
"harassed by intimidation." 

This measure would permit law suits against 
unions who engage in informational or other 
picketing. Anyone-bosses, scabs, security guards, 
or passing motorists-may claim they were "harassed 
by intimidation" as a result of a labor action and 
sue under this measure. 

It would permit lawsuits against lobbyists by 
those who oppose their views, on the theory that 
the opponent is "aggrieved" because the lobbyist 
addressed a public official privately. 

If you want to think about other ways this 
measure may be abused, just use "intimidated" in a 
sentence. 

This measure does too little. It would dilute 
existing law. 

It would cut down on the kinds of liens that a 
county clerk and recorder may reject. 

Current law allows a person to ask their county 
clerk and recorder to remove an illegal lien. 1-123 



would force you to hire a lawyer and go to court. 

Current law allows persons to recover three 
times their damages from someone who files an 
unlawful lien. In contrast, this measure reduces the 
damages that may be recovered. 

Montana law already provides for attorney's fees 
to be awarded to one against whose property a lien 
is claimed. 

This measure would prohibit "non-consensual" 
common law liens (liens "not provided for by a 
specific state or federal statute"). Historically, 
artisans and those who repaired goods have held 
common law liens against the property they 
repaired. This means that the mechanic who 
worked on your car or the artisan who repaired 
your shoes is entitled to retain these things until he 
or she is paid. This measure is not clear in 
describing what happens to those types of liens. 
Are they "of a type commonly used in legitimate 
commercial transaction" or not? 

The law needs room to grow and to 
accommodate changes. This measure freezes the 
law of liens and permits no further growth or 
development. When tradespeople, artisans, 
mechanics and others develop new means to 
protect the value of their services, those means 
ought to be recognized. This measure will defeat 
them. 

A San Francisco organization paid over $26,000 
to get 1-123 on the ballot. We recommend that 
Montanans vote "no." 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Scott Crichton, Larry 
Dodge, and Jeffrey T. Renz. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTA I OF THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSING 1-123 

The Committee arguing against 1-1 23 says that it 
encourages litigation. 

Wrong! 

The court system is a way to seek justice for those 
who are threatened and intimidated by extremist 
activity. In America, the solution for law-breaking 
extremist activity is not found outside the law - - 
but within the legal system. 



18 



Initiative 123 (continued) 



They've nfiade ludicrous suggestions that 1-123 
would have convicted criminals suing their juries 
or would allow extremists to sue Montana citizens 
and public officials. 

Wrong! 

They say that if you are anti-abortion you can be 
sued by someone who is pro-abortion - - and vice 
versa. 

Wron^ again! 

You would only have a problem if you are 
violating the law by using illegal threats and 
intimidation. 

They say that if you are on a labor picket line, you 
can be sued by bosses and scabs. 

Again, wrong! 

This is just a scare tactic. Someone legally 
picketing is protected by 1-1 23 from those who use 
illegal threats against them. 

They imply that the lien section of 1-1 23 is 
unnecessary because current law covers the 
problem of false extremist harassment liens. 

Another wrong! 

Our review of this with other attorneys indicates 
that 1-123 will work in coordination with existing 
laws - - as the drafters of 1-1 23 had intended. 

Finally, they have dreamed up an idea that 
mechanics liens used by artisans and those who 
repair goods would become illegal. Since these 
liens are "a type commonly used in legitimate 
commercial transactions", they are nssl prohibited 
by 1-123. 

Overall, their entire argument is wrong! 



OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL O *^ THE ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING 1-123 

We are reminded of a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Bugs 
draws a line in the sand and says to Yosemite Sam, 
"Cross that, and you'll get what's comin' to ya." 
Sam hops across the line and says, "Okay. Now 
what, Rabbit?" 

With 1-123, Sam runs off and gets his lawyer, and 
sues Bugs. It's as easy as 1-2-3. 

1-123 makes it easy to sue over words we don't 
like, but tolerate in a boisterous democratic 
society. Last July, under a similar New Jersey law, a 
man was put on trial for intimidation for saying, 
"Here comes sissie number one." Said his accuser, 
"I felt intimidated." 

You call your mayor an "Old coot" for supporting 
an ordinance? He sues you, as easy as 1-2-3. Joe 
the Freemen doesn't like what the judge said about 
his legal theory? He sues the judge, as easy as 
1-2-3. Joe doesn't care. He'll use 1-123 to harass 
officials. 

On the other hand 1-1 23 makes it harder to win 
when threats are serious. The judges mentioned in 
the Voter Information Pamphlet had a right to sue 
for assault. Assault would be easier to prove than 
would a violation of 1-1 23. (An assault is a threat; a 
battery is physical contact.) 

An 1-123 drafter says 1-123 has "symbolic value." 
So now we can fill the courts with symbolic, 
ineffective, and harassing lawsuits that cost 
taxpayers a lot of money. 

1-1 23 is mis-named. It ought to be called "The 
Friends of the Freeman Act." 



19 



INITIATIVE 125 (1-125) 



How the issue will appear on the ballot 



INITIATIVE 125 
A law proposed by initiative petition 

Current law prohibits corporations from making direct contributions to political candidates or to political 
committees that support or oppose candidates or political parties. This initiative would prohibit direct 
corporate contributions or expenditures toward the support or defeat of ballot issues. It would allow 
contributions by non-profit corporations that do not: engage in business activities, allow for-profit 
corporations as members, or accept more than 5% of their revenue from for-profit corporations. The 
initiative also would set a voluntary spending limit for ballot issue committees of $1 50,000 per year and 
allow them to advertise compliance with that limit. 

FISCAL STATEMENT: Administrative costs for the Commissioner of Political Practices would be $2,500 in 
fiscal year 1997 and then $1,500 per year. 

D FOR prohibiting direct corporate spending on ballot issues, except by non-profit corporations not 
controlled by for-profit companies, and setting voluntary spending limits for ballot issues. 

D AGAINST prohibiting direct corporate spending on ballot issues, except by non-profit corporations not 
controlled by for-profit companies, and setting voluntary spending limits for ballot issues. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR 1-125 

There is too much money spent on politics in 
Montana. And, no where else Is it spent by so few 
in such large amounts as in ballot campaigns. 
Initiative 125 will cure this problem. It does so by 
prohibiting corporations from making 
contributions out of the corporate checkbook on 
ballot campaigns. This change would make the 
system more fair for the average Montanan. 

Montanans think of initiatives and ballot 
campaigns as being the way the "people" can 
speak out directly and pass laws. Too often, 
though, the voice of the people is drowned out by 
the voice of corporations spending huge sums of 
corporate money to present a side of the story 
slanted to preserve some corporate benefit. 

Corporations are not allowed to give directly to 
political candidates or political parties in Montana. 
Only in regard to ballot issues can a corporation 
write a corporate check to buy politics the same 
way they buy raw materials. 

Corporations are not people. They "live" by 
artificial charter, not by flesh, blood and 
conscience. Because they are eternal and have 
more money, corporations generally are treated 
differently than people in regard to the role they 
play in Montana politics. 



Over $3 million of the $4+ million raised from 
1 982 - 1 994 to support or oppose ballot issues was 
direct contributions from corporations and their 
allies. The top three contributors on ballot issues in 
Montana are: 

1. Phillip Morris, New York, NY $626,235 
(Tobacco Industry) 

2. R.J. Reynolds, Winston-Salem, NC $302,073 
(Tobacco Industry) 

3. The Tobacco Institute, Washington, DC 
$265,927 (Tobacco Industry) 

In 1990, 1-110 (imposing a tax on tobacco 
products to promote health) was defeated by these 
corporate contributions. 1-110 was placed on the 
ballot by Montana health professionals. 

For the 1 996, election large direct corporate 
contributions from multinational mining 
companies are the source of campaign funds to 
fight 1-122, the clean water initiative. As of July 5 
these contributions include: 

1. Golden Sunlight Mining Company $141,000 

2. Phelps Dodge Mining Company $ 1 00,000 

3. ASARCO Mining Company $ 50,000 

4. Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) $ 50,000 

5. Beal Mountain Mining $41,900 



20 



Initiative 125 (continued) 



The ability of corporations to give directly from 
their corporate checkbooks has given them too 
large a voice in Montana's initiative process. 1-125 
makes the process more fair. Passage of 1-1 25 
means individuals, including any business owner, 
shareholder, or director, will make contributions to 
the ballot campaigns of their choice. 

1-125 closes loopholes so that corporations can 
not use "front" nonprofit organizations to givfe 
contributions to ballot campaigns and sets a 
voluntary spending limit of $ 1 50,000 per ballot 
committee with penalties for violations. 

Money from special economic interests is 
drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens in 
Montana. 1-125 will close a loophole in Montana's 
laws to make ballot issue campaigns operate by the 
same rules as candidates and parties. 

This is fair and 1-1 25 should pass. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Jonathan MotI, C.B. 
Pearson, and Barb Seekins. 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST 1-125 

Montanans, like most Americans, value their 
freedom of speech. While we might not always 
agree with others, we respect their right to voice 
their opinions. And we hope they will afford us the 
same opportunity. We also believe in making 
informed choices on issues that affect our lives. 

No other state prohibits corporate contributions to 
ballot issue campaigns. The reason for that is clear. 
The United States Supreme Court has already ruled 
that such a restriction would violate our right to 
freedom of speech. In a 1981 decision, the Court 
stated that while a case can be made for placing 
limits on contributions to political candidates to 
avoid the appearance of corruption - - as Montana 
has already done - - the same justification does not 
apply to ballot measures. Specifically, the Court 
said "...there is no significant state or public interest 
in curtailing debate and discussion of a ballot 
measure. Placing limits on contributions which in 
turn limit expenditures plainly impairs freedom of 
expression." 

1-1 25 treads on the constitutional rights of the 
business community, as well as any group that has 
a corporate structure or operating practices that fall 
under the broad sweep of this proposal. We can't 



predict what issues might find their way to the 
ballot in the future. Do Montanans really want to 
inhibit local businesses or others who might be 
harmed by a poorly-conceived initiative from 
adequately making their case to the public? Is it fair 
to allow some organizations full access to the 
political process while limiting the abilities of 
others to participate? Ultimately that will be the 
effect of 1-125. 

1-125 is not only constitutionally flawed. It also fails 
to recognize the difference between ballot issue 
and candidate elections. When one votes on a 
ballot issue, he or she is making law. 

The Montana Legislature meets in regular session 
every two years. As bills are considered, a wide 
array of interests bring information, ideas and 
concerns into the debate before legislators cast 
their vote. To protect the public interest, current 
state law requires expenditures made during this 
process to be reported. 

With regard to ballot issues, the entire voting 
public becomes the "legislature". Only instead of 
meeting in one place where those with knowledge 
about a proposal can gather and discuss its 
impacts, hundreds of thousands of individual 
Montanans are going to be making the decision. As 
with the Montana Legislature, we want those to be 
informed decisions. 

Those arguing for or against ballot measures are as 
important to informing the debate as those who 
give testimony in front of legislative committees. 
Again, to protect the public interest, state law 
requires contributions and expenditures to ballot 
issue campaigns to be reported. Yet 1-125 wants to 
unfairly restrict the ability of some to fully 
participate in the process. And in the end, it will 
restrict the ability of the individual voter to get 
information he or she needs to make decisions that 
best serve the interests of all Montanans. 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Jerome Anderson, 
Peggy Olson Trenk, Senator Jim Burnett, and 
David Owen. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSINqM25 

Corporate "free" speech costs us all. A corporation 



21 



Initiative 125 (continued) 



uses its staff, phones, cars, or checkbook to "speak" 
on initiatives. And, that cost becomes a tax- 
deductible business expense or is added to the 
price of the product. Buying politics and buying 
lumber is the same to a corporation. FACT: 72% of 
Montana's ballot contributions come from 
corporate or trade association checkbooks. 

Not so for most Montanans. We have limited 
money and get no tax deduction for ballot issue 
spending. So we speak by carrying petitions, 
writing letters, etc. FACT: 2% of Montana's ballot 
contributions come from small contributions. 

1-125 does not limit the right but enhances the 
ability of many to participate by shifting the focus 
from money to time (which we all have the same 
amount of). That is fair. 

Large contributions from special interests are not 
needed for a healthy debate. Montanans have 
many forums (including this pamphlet) to debate 
ballot issues. 

1-1 25 does not ban corporate speech but redefines 
the method of speech by prohibiting direct 
corporate spending. That approach is 
constitutionally permissible. 

The proponents of 1-1 25 are the same people who 
in 1983 designed Montana's aggregate PAC limit 
law for state legislative races. That law was also 
attacked as "unconstitutional" but the law has 
worked well for 13 years. 

Our opponents are lobbyists and public relations 
advocates for the very corporations who presently 
dominate the process with their funds. 



1-125 will make our political system more fair. Vote 
FOR 1-125. 



OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
SUPPORTING 1-125 

Proponents would like Montanans to believe the 
only effect of 1-1 25 would be to limit participation 
in the election process by entities they perceive 
might be politically unpopular. They are being less 
than honest with Montana voters. 

Non-profit hospitals, universities, charities, 
environmental and even religious organizations are 
affected if they meet any one of the provisions of 
1-1 25. Many will. If an initiative were to appear on 
the ballot that would impact any of the above, they 
could not spend their own funds to give voters 
information. There could be initiatives affecting 
hunting and fishing, taxes, or even education. If we 
lock out businesses and many non-profit 
organizations, only an elite few will be party to the 
debate over these important issues. 

1-125 was not developed simply by Montanans 
concerned about the election process. It is based 
on a model promoted by very liberal national 
interests. Two years ago they tried the same thing 
in Massachusetts where the measure was soundly 
defeated. Montana voters respect an open political 
process as much as those in Massachusetts. Their 
votes cannot be bought. 

Finally, working, caring people make up 
corporations. They are our neighbors, our 
colleagues. 1-125 would deny both large and small 
businesses, institutions and organizations the 
opportunity to protect themselves, their employees 
and their members. That's just plain wrong. 1-125 
should not pass. 



INITIATIVE 132 (1-132) 

How the issue will appear on the ballot 



INITIATIVE 132 
A law proposed by initiative petition 



This initiative would declare the policy of the voters of Montana to pass an amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution imposing term limits on members of Congress. Legislative and Congressional candidates could 
take a pledge to support a term limits constitutional amendment. Any candidate for congressional or state 



22 



Initiative 132 (continued) 



legislative office who fails to support such a term limits amendment would have the words "Disregarded 
Montana Voters on Term Limits" printed next to that candidate's name on the ballot. A challenge could be 
brought in the Montana Supreme Court to require that language to be added to or removed from the ballot. 

D FOR requiring a notation on state ballots showing candidates for Congress or the legislature who fail to 
support term limits for members of Congress. 

D AGAINST requiring a notation on state ballots showing candidates for Congress or the legislature who 
fail to support term limits for members of Congress. 



PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR 1-132 

Four years ago the citizens of Montana passed 
congressional term limits with a 67 percent 
majority. Our law limited the terms of our federal 
Representative and Senators. Instead of listening to 
the people, the career politicians in Washington, 
D.C. went to the courts for protection. In a 5-4 
decision, the Supreme Court sided with the 
politicians and voided our federal term limits. We 
now must amend the United States Constitution to 
institute term limits. This Initiative does something 
very simple. Every incumbent who fails to support 
the term limits amendment, and every challenger 
who fails to take a term limits pledge, will have 
"Disregarded Montana Voters on Term Limits" next 
to their name on the ballot. All citizens will receive 
fair and objective information on the candidate's 
position regarding term limits. 

Today's election process heavily favors 
incumbents. Through a whole list of advantages 
available only to incumbents, paid for by you the 
taxpayer, politicians can stay in office forever. 
Taxpayer financed bulk mailings, name 
recognition, highly paid and trained political staffs, 
pork barrel politics and overwhelming advantages 
in raising special interest money keep qualified and 
motivated challengers out of office. Simply put, a 
member of Congress can have a job for life if they 
play their cards right. Long-term career politicians 
in Washington have mortgaged America's future 
with a mountain of debt for a bloated, intrusive 
and expensive federal government. A yes vote on 
1 32 is about cleaning up the corrupt system of 
seniority and power accumulation and replacing it 
with citizen legislators who know what it is like to 
live outside government. Citizen legislators are 
more likely to work for the good of the country 
then the good of the special interest groups that 
fuel the reelection campaigns of the career 
politician. Term limits are the only way to level the 
playing field and let fresh ideas and new faces into 
the system. The passage of Initiative No. 132 is the 



beginning of the process toward term limits. 

Since 1990, 25 million Americans have voted 
for congressional term limits in 23 states including 
Montana. The President of the United States, 40 
governors, and 20 state legislatures have term 
limits for elected officials. Montana's Governor and 
other state elected officials have term limits. 
Initiative No. 1 32 gives the power back to the 
people. 

If you favor term limits or even if opposed, you 
should still want to know if the person you are 
voting for agrees with you. Passing Initiative No. 
132 will give you that information every time you 
enter the voting booth. Vote yes on Initiative 132 
for term limits on congress. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Fred Thomas, Tom 
Shellenberg, and Ed Butcher. 



OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST 1-132 

1-132 is an outrageous proposal requiring 
candidates for the State LJegislature and Congress 
to take a pledge that if elected they will vote for 
term limitations for members of Congress. Their 
failure to so pledge will cause the Secretary of State 
to print after a candidates name: "Disregarded 
Montana Voters on Term Limits". Their failure to so 
pledge is a form of extreme intimidation of 
candidates that have no opportunity to debate the 
term limitation issue. 

The issue is NOT whether or not you favor term 
limits. The issue IS : should we desecrate the ballot 
by having the statement, "Disregarded Montana 
Voters on Term Limits" printed after the names of 
candidates who refused to pledge their position? 
Will other single issue advocates be allowed to use 
the ballot for campaigning to pledged positions on 
abortion, gun control. Medicare reform, flat-tax, 
etc.? 



23 



Initiative 132 (continued) 



The real thrust of 1-1 32 is to force Congress to 
limit terms for its members. If successful, this 
would start action to amend the U.S. Constitution 
by "packing" the new Congress with members 
pledged to support a proposed term limit 
amendment. State Legislatures (also so packed) 
would then be asked to vote for ratification of such 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

If Congress fails to pass a term limitation 
amendment or the necessary number of states fail 
to ratify the term limitation amendment, in fulfilling 
the goal of 1-1 32, it could result in calling a 
National Constitutional Convention for the purpose 
of amending our U. S. Constitution. This could 
lead to introduction of, not only this amendment, 
but possibly many other amendments to the U.S. 
Constitution. The possibility of serious harm to our 
U.S. Constitution could well be of disastrous 
proportions. 

The responsibility placed upon the Secretary of 
State to determine which candidates should or ' 
should not have the statement "Disregarded 
Montana Voters on Term Limits" printed after 
his/her name on the ballot would be very 
burdensome. The Secretary of State would have to 
poll all the candidates for the Legislature and for 
the Congress in all primary and general elections, 
have to accurately determine their positions, shall 
consider public comments before making the 
determination who will be selected and then 
defend the decision before the Supreme Court if 
challenged by an offended candidate. It certainly 
will encumber the electoral process and add to the 
costs of operations. 

If 1-132 is adopted there would be serious 
questions raised about it constitutionally. At 
present there is no case law established on this 
radical issue. There could be very costly litigation 
on its constitutionality extending over several 
years. 

Montana's plain, simple, uniform, secret ballot 
should not be sacrificed for the objectives of some 
out-of-state organization. 

1-132 is a bad, had proposal . It is of no positive 
service to the Nation and has harmful and 
disturbing effects on our electoral process. It 
threatens potential Montana candidates with such 
negative campaigning that they may not aspire to 
such office. 

We respectfully urge a sound rejection of 1-132 
by voting NO! 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Matt Himsl, Francis 
Bardanouve, and Verner L. Bertelsen. 



PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT 
OPPOSING 1-132 

The opponents' arguments prove just how 
frightened politicians are by the truth on their 
records. Their main objection seems to be that 
voters will actually be told, right on the ballot, 
about their candidates' records on term limits. No 
politics, no avoiding the issue, voters will receive 
just the facts on term limits. 

Everybody knows that Congress has a conflict of 
interest on term limits. In the past. Congress 
blocked the XVII Amendment to the Constitution, 
creating the Direct Election of U.S. Senators rather 
then being appointed by state legislatures. Just like 
term limits, America wanted Direct Election, but 
Congress had a conflict of interest. Across the 
country, primary ballots indicated who supported 
Direct Election and who did not. This voter 
information was key to winning the day. Montana 
was a leader in the movement for Direct Election, 
and is a leader in the Term Limits Movement. 

In desperation, opponents of 1-1 32 say that it 
will cost money. But, the Secretary of State has 
stated that there is no fiscal impact. How much 
money has a career Congress cost you? Pork-barrel 
spending and catering to special interests have 
brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy. 
Only with a term-limited Congress will we end the 
seniority (pork-barrel) system. Only with term limits 
will we again live up the founders' vision of a 
legislature "of the people, by the people, and for 
the people." 

We want the facts and that is all we want. Vote 
yes on 1-132. 

OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THF ARGUMENT 
<;iJPPORTING 1-132 

The process being used in 1-132 to coerce 
members of our State Legislature and our 
congressional delegation to support term limits is 
so obnoxious it overshadows the very purpose of 
the initiative. It is a violation of all democratic 
principles. 

We already have the ballot and can limit the 
term of an incumbent by electing his or her 
challenger. Montana could actually lose by limiting 
the term of a popular, effective and seasoned 
official. There is much to be said for a 
Congressional incumbent who has gained 
prominence in Congress and learned the legislative 



24 



Initiative 132 (continued) 



process. 

When we consider the danger of starting a 
process which could lead to single issues of all 
kinds being added to names of candidates on the 
ballot, it is frightening. 

1-132 could lead to a dangerous constitutional 
convention with possible serious damage to our 
Constitution. 1-132 would place the Secretary of 



State in the very unenviable position of 
determining which candidates should or should 
not bear the "Scarlet Letter"; "Disregarded Montana 
Voters on Term Limits." This could generate many 
costly lawsuits. 

Finally, we seriously question the 
constitutionality of any measure which places a 
campaign slogan after the name of a candidate on 
the ballot. 

For all these reasons, we urge you to vote NO 
on 1-132. 



The Complete Text of Ballot Issues 



The Complete Text of C-30 



AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS 
OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE X, 
SECTION 9, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO 
REPLACE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE BOARD 
OF REGENTS, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER 
EDUCATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF 
EDUCATION AND A STATE EDUCATION 
COMMISSION; PROVIDING TRANSITIONAL 
INSTRUCTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE 
EFFECTIVE DATE. 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE 
OF MONTANA: 

Section 1. Article X, section 9, of The Constitution of 
the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 9. Boertb Department of education - state 
education commission - board of public education . 

(1) There is a stat e board of educat i on composed of th e 
board of regents of h i gh e r e ducat i on and the board of 
publ i c educat i on. I t i s r e spons i b l e for l ong - range p l ann i ng, 
and for coord i nat i ng and e va l uat i ng po li c i es and program s 
for the stat e ' s e ducat i ona l s ystems. I t sha ll subm i t un i f ie d 
bud j ict request s department of education, wfith a director 
appointed by the governor . The department and the 
director shall have duties as assigned bv law. 

(2) There is a state education commission, consisting 
of eight members appointed bv the governor and 
confirmed bv the senat e to staggered terms, as provided 
by law. The commission shall have duties assigned bv 
law. A Except in the case of a tie vote at any meeting may 
be broken by of the commission, the governor, who 
director shall serve as the non-voting presiding officer and 
is an ex officio member of each component board the 
commission . 

(2) (a) The government and contro l of th e Montana 
un i vers i ty system i s vested i n a board of regent s of h i gher 



e ducat i on wh i ch s ha ll have fu ll pow e r, respons i b ili ty, and 
author i ty to s up e rv i se, coord i nate, manag e and contro l 
th e Montana un i ver si ty system and sha ll superv i se and 
coordinate other pub li c educat i ona l i nst i tut i ons a s s i gned 
by l aw. 

(b) Th e board cons i sts of seven members appo i nted 
by th e governor, and conf i rm e d by the senate, to 
ov e r l app i ng terms, a s prov i ded by l aw. The governor and 
s up e r i ntend e nt of pub li c i nstruct i on ar e an e x off i c i o 
non - vot i ng member s of th e board. 

(c) The board sha ll appo i nt a comm i ss i oner of h i ghe r 
educat i on and prescr i b e h i s t er m and dut i es. 

(d) Th e funds and appropr i at i ons und e r the contro l of 
th e board of reg e nts are subject to the sam e aud i t 
prov i sions as are a ll other stat e funds. 

(3) (a) There is a board of public education to 
exercise general supervision over the public school 
system and such other public educational institutions as 
may be assigned by law. Other duties of the board shall 
be provided by law. 

(b) The board consists of seven members appointed 
by the governor, and confirmed by the senate, to 
overlapping terms as provided by law. The governor; 
comm i ssione r of h i gher educat i o n and state 
superintendent of public instruction shall be ex officio 
non-voting members of the board." 

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the 
electorate, this amendment is effective on passage and 
approval. 

Section 3. Transition. Upon passage and approval, 
the governor may create a department of education and 
the state education commission as provided in Article X, 
section 9. The department and the commission may 
exercise statutorily assigned duties. The board of regents 
and the commissioner of higher education shall continue 



25 



Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued) 



to perform duties that were constitutionally assigned until 
January 1 , 2001 . The terms of office and appointments to 
the board of regents remain in effect until January 1, 
2001. 

Section 4. Submission to electorate. This 
amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of 
Montana at the general election to be held in November 
1 996 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and 



the following: 

D FOR replacing the board of education, board of 
regents, and commissioner of higher education 
with a department of education and a state 
education commission. 

Q AGAINST replacing the board of education, 
board of regents, and commissioner of higher 
education with a department of education and a 
state education commission. 



The Complete Text of C-31 



AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS 
OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VIII, 
SECTION 13, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO 
ALLOW STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND 
MONEY TO BE INVESTED IN PRIVATE CORPORATE 
CAPITAL STOCK. 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE 

OF MONTANA: 

Section 1. Article VIII, section 13, of The Constitution 
of the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 13. Investment of public funds. (1) The 

legislature shall provide for a unified investment program 
for public funds and provide rules therefor, including 
supervision of investment of surplus funds of all counties, 
cities, towns, and other local governrhental entities. Each 
fund forming a part of the unified investment program 
shall be separately identified. Except for monies 
contributed to retirement funds or monies in the state 
compensation insurance fund, no public funds shall be 
invested in private corporate capital stock. The investment 
program shall be audited at least annually and a report 
thereof submitted to the governor and legislature. 



(2) The public school fund and the permanent funds 
of the Montana university system and all other state 
institutions of learning shall be safely and conservatively 
invested in: 

(a) Public securities of the state, its subdivisions, local 
government units, and districts within the state, or 

(b) Bonds of the United States or other securities fully 
guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United 
States, or 

(c) Such other safe investments bearing a fixed rate of 
interest as may be provided by law." 

Section 2. Submission to electorate. This 
amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of 
Montana at the general election to be held in November 
1 996 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and 
the following: 

D FOR allowing state compensation insurance fund 
money to be invested in private corporate capital 
stock. 
Q AGAINST allowing state compensation insurance 
fund money to be invested in private corporate 
capital stock. 



The Complete Text of C-32 



AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS 
OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, 
SECTION 6, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO 
PROVIDE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL MEET IN 
REGULAR SESSION BIENNIALLY IN EVEN-NUMBERED 
YEARS OR IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS; AND 
PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE. 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE 
OF MONTANA: 

Section 1. Article V, section 6, of The Constitution of 
the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 6. Sessions. The legislature shall meet eeeH 
odd - numbcfcd year biennially in regular session of not 
more than 90 legislative days. Any legislature may 
increase the limit on the length of any subsequent session. 
The legislature may be convened in speciaj 



sessions by the governor or at the written request of a 
majority of the members." 

Section 2. Submission to electorate. This 
amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of 
Montana at the general election to be held in November 
1 996 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and 
the following: 

U FOR restricting the legislature to meeting in 
regular session for 90 days in either 
even-numbered or odd-numbered years, but not 
both. 
□ AGAINST restricting the legislature to meeting in 
regular session for 90 days in either 
even-numbered or odd-numbered years, but not 
both. 

Section 3. Effective date. [This act] is effective 
January 1, 1998. 



26 



The Complete Text of 1-121 



BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 
MONTANA: 

Section 1. Section 39-3-409, MCA, is amended to 
read: 

"39-3-409. Adoption of minimum wage rates - - 
exception. (1) The commissioner shall adopt rules to 
establish a minimum wage that, except as provided in 
subsect i on subsections (2) and (3). must be the s am e 
greater of either the minimum hourly wage rate as 
provided under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 
U.S.C 206(a)(1))7fini 

(a) $4.75 an hour beginning lanuarv 1 . 1 997: 



(b) $5.25 an hour beginning lanuarv 1. 1998: 

(c) $5.75 an hour beginning lanuary 1. 1999: and 

(d) $6.25 an hour beginning lanuarv 1 . 2000. 

(2) The rates establ ished under subsection (1) exclude 
exc l ud i ng the value of tips received by the employee and 
the special provisions for a training wage. 

{SrH21 The minimum wage rate for a business whose 
annual gross sales are $11 0,000 or less is $4 an hour." 

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Effective date. If 
approved by the electorate, this act is effective January 1, 
1997. 



The Complete Text of 1-122 



BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA: 

NEW SECTION. Section 1 . Protection of water quality 
from metal mines. (1) The department may not issue an 
operating permit for a new cyanide-leach or other 
precious metal or base metal mine, may not issue a major 
amendment to a permit for a cyanide-leach mine, and 
may not grant new or additional authorizations under a 
new or existing precious metal or base metal exploration 
license unless each point source discharge to state waters 
authorized or allowed by the department under the 
permit, amended permit, or exploration license is treated 
to ensure effective removal of each carcinogen, toxin, and 
nutrient and any iron and manganese occurring in the 
discharge at a level exceeding water quality standards 
adopted under Title 75, chapter 5. 

(2) For purposes of this section, "effective removal" 
means that prior to any dilution or discharge to state 
waters, treatment must achieve for each carcinogen, toxin, 
and nutrient and any iron and manganese the more 
protective of water quality of the following: 

(a) the removal of each carcinogen and toxin and 



any iron and manganese to the level required by the 
applicable water quality standards adopted in Title 
75, chapter 5; or 

(b) the removal of more than 80% of each 
carcinogen, toxin, and nutrient. 

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Severability. If a part of this 
amendment is invalid, all valid parts that are severable 
from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this 
amendment is invalid in one or more of its applications, 
the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are 
severable from the invalid applications. 

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Codification. Section 1 is 
intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 82, 
chapter 4, part 3, and the provisions of Title 82, chapter 4, 
part 3, apply to section 1 . 

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Effective date. If approved 
by the electorate, this amendment is effective November 
5,1996. 



The Complete Text of 1-123 



BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 
MONTANA: 

NEW SECTION . Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 
through 4] may be cited as the "Montana Anti- 
intimidation Act of 1996". 

NEW SECTION . Section 2. Findings - - purpose. (1) 
[Sections 1 through 4] seek to address the growing 
problem of harassing and threatening behavior being 
undertaken by extremist individuals and groups in 
Montana. Numerous public officials and their families, 
voters, juries, individuals, and organizations have been 
targeted for intimidation and harassment by extremists. 
One of the principal tools of intimidation used by 
extremists is a false lien filed upon the property of an 



individual or organization. 

(2) The purpose of [sections 1 through 4] is to restrain 
these extremist activities by providing a civil remedy for 
anyone injured or harmed as a result of acts of 
intimidation, precluding the filing of false liens and 
establishing a procedure for removing an existing false 
lien. 

NEW SECTION . Section 3. Civil Action. (1) A public 
official, family member of a public official, juror, voter, 
individual or organization that is injured, harmed or 
otherwise aggrieved by the acts of another person in 
violation of 45-7-102, 45-7-209 or 45-5-203 has a civil 
cause of action against the person causing the harm. 

(2) An individual or organization who is attempting to 
exercise a legally protected right and who is injured. 



27 



Initiative 123 (continued) 



harassed or aggrieved by a threat or intimidation has a 
civil cause of action against the person engaging in the 
threatening or intimidating behavior. 

(3) A conviction for violation of 45-7-102, 45-7-209 
or 45-5-203 is not a condition precedent for a civil action 
under this section. 

NEW SECTION . Section 4. Liens. (1) As used in this 
section, the following definitions apply: 

(a) "Lien" means an encumbrance on property as 
security for the payment of a debt. 

(b) "Nonconsensual common-law lien" means a lien 
that: 

(i) is not provided for by a specific state or federal 
statute; 

(ii) does not depend upon the consent of the owner of 
the property affected for its existence; 

(iii) is not an equitable or constructive lien imposed 
by a court; and 

(iv) is not of a type commonly used in legitimate 
commercial transactions. 

(c) "Person" means an individual, group of individuals 
or any organization of individuals. 

(2) A person may not file a nonconsensual common- 
law lien upon the real or personal property of an 
individual or organization. 

(3) (a) If a nonconsensual common-law lien is filed 



against the real or personal property of an individual or 
organization, the individual or organization may petition 
the district court in the county in which the affected 
property is located to remove the nonconsensual 
common-law lien. If the district court determines that the 
lien in question is a nonconsensual common-law lien the 
district court shall enter an order directing the appropriate 
public official to remove the nonconsensual common-law 
lien. 

(b) The legislature may provide other methods of 
removing nonconsensual common-law liens. 
(4) The person filing the nonconsensual 
common-law lien is liable for the costs of removing the 
nonconsensual common-law lien, including reasonable 
attorney fees, court costs, and actual damages sustained 
by the aggrieved individual or organization as a result of 
the nonconsensual common-law lien. 

NEW SECTION . Section 5. Codification Instruction. 
[Sections 1 through 4] are intended to be codified as an 
integral part of Title 27, Chapter 1, and the provisions of 
Title 27, Chapter 1, apply to [sections 1 through 4]. 

NEW SECTION . Section 6. Effective date - - 
applicability. If approved by the electorate, this act is 
effective January 1, 1997, and applies to nonconsensual 
common-law liens filed before or after January 1, 1997. 



The Complete Text of 1-125 



BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 
MONTANA: 

SECTION 1. Section 13-35-227, MCA, is amended to 
read: 

"13-35-227. Prohibited contributions from 
corporations. (11 (a) -A Except as provided in subsection 
(4). a corporation may not make a contribution or an 
expenditure in connection with a candidate , a ballot 
issue, or a political committee which supports or opposes 
a candidate , a ballot issue, or a political party. 

(b) For purposes of this section, "corporation" 
refers to for-profit and nonprofit co rporations. 

(2) A person, candidate, or political committee may 
not accept or receive a corporate contribution described 
in subsection (1). 

(3) This section does not prohibit the establishment 
or administration of a separate, segregated fund to be used 
for making political contributions or expenditures if the 
fund consists only of voluntary contributions solicited 
from an individual who is a shareholder, employee, or a 
member of the corporation. 

(4) The provisions of subsection (1) prohibiting 
corporate contributions to or exp enditures in connection 
with a ballot issue do no t apply to a nonprofit corporation 
formed for the purpose , among others, of promoting 
political ideas, and that: 

(a) does not e ngage in business activities: 



(b) has no shareholders or o ther affiliated 
persons who have a private claim on the corporation's 
assets or earnings: 

(c) does not accept foreign or dome stic for-profit 
corporations as members: and 

(d) does not accept in the aggregate more than 
5% annually of its total revenue from foreig n or domestic 
for-profit corporations. 

W (51 A person who violates this section is subject to 
the civil penalty provisions of 13-37-128." 

NEW SECTION. SECTION 2. Voluntary spending 
limits. (1)(a) Beginning January 1, 1997, the following 
statement may be used in printed matter and in broadcast 
advertisements and may appear in the voter information 
pamphlet prepared by the secretary of state: "According to 
the Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices, .... 
... is in compliance with the voluntary expenditure limits 
established under Montana law." 

(b) The treasurer of each political committee, as 
defined in 1 3-1-101 (12)(b), who files a certification on a 
ballot issue pursuant to 13-37-201 may also file with the 
commissioner a sworn statement that the committee will 
not exceed the voluntary expenditure limits of this 
section. If a sworn statement is made, it must be filed 
with the commissioner within 30 days of the certification 
of the political committee. 



28 



Initiative 125 (continued) 



(c) A political committee that has not filed a 
swom statement with the commissioner may not 
distribute any printed matter or pay for any broadcast 
claiming to be in compliance with the voluntary 
expenditure limits of this section. 

(d) A political committee may not use evidence 
of compliance with the voluntary expenditure limits of 
this section to imply to the public that the committee has 
received endorsement or approval by the state of 
Montana. 

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expenditures 
made by a political committee consist of the aggregate 
total of the following during a calendar year: 

(a) all loans made or received by the committee; 

(b) all committee expenditures made by check or 
cash; and 

(c) the dollar value of all in-kind contributions 
made or received by the committee. 

(3) In order to be identified as a political committee 
in compliance with the voluntary expenditure limits of 
this section, the committee's expenditures, as described in 



subsection (2), may not exceed $1 50,000. 

(4) Beginning January 1, 1997, any political 
committee that files with the commissioner a sworn 
statement to abide by the voluntary expenditure limits of 
this section but that exceeds those limits shall pay a fine 
of $5,000 to the commissioner. This money must be 
deposited in a separate fund to be used to support the 
enforcement programs of the office of the commissioner. 

NEW SECTION. SECTION 3. Codification 
instruction. Section 2 is intended to be codified as an 
integral part of Title 13, chapter 37, and the provisions of 
Title 1 3, chapter 37 apply to section 2. 

NEW SECTION. SECTION 4. Severability. If a part 
of this amendment is invalid, all valid parts that are 
severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part 
of this Act is invalid in one or more of its applications, the 
part remains in effect in all valid applications that are 
severable from the invalid applications. 



The Complete Text of 1-132 



Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Montana: 
NEW SECTION Section 1 . Purpose - Congressional Term 
Limits Amendment - Voter Instructions. 

(1) It is the purpose of sections 1-8 to lead to the adoption 
of the following United States Constitutional 
Amendment, and therefore the term "Congressional Term 
Limits Amendment" is defined for purposes of this statute 
as follows: 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT 
Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of United 
States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
ratification of this amendment no person who has held 
the office of United States Representative or who then 
holds the office shall serve for more than two additional 
terms. 

Section 2. No person shall serve in the office of United 
States Senator for more than two terms, but upon 
ratification of this amendment no person who has held 
the office of United States Senator or who then holds the 
office shall serve for more than one additional term. 

Section 3. This article shall have no time limit within 
which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States. 

NEW SECTION Section 2. Ballot Information Regarding 
Congressional Term Limits - Members of Congress. 

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the secretary of 
state shall ensure that all primary and general election 
ballots shall have printed the information 
"DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS ON TERM 
LIMITS" adjacent to the name of any United States 



Senator or Representative who: 

(a) fails to vote in favor of the proposed Congressional 
Term Limits Amendment set forth in section 1 when 
brought to a vote; 

(b) fails to second the proposed Congressional Term 
Limits Amendment set forth in section 1 if it lacks for a 
second before any proceeding of the legislative body; 

(c) fails to propose or otherwise bring to a vote of the 
full legislative body the proposed Congressional Term 
Limits Amendment set forth in section 1 if it otherwise 
lacks a legislator who so proposes or brings to a vote of 
the full legislative body the proposed Congressional Term 
Limits Amendment set forth in section 1; 

(d) fails to vote in favor of all votes bringing the 
proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set 
forth in section 1 before any committee or subcommittee 
of the respective house upon which he or she serves; 

(e) fails to reject any attempt to delay, table or 
otherwise prevent a vote by the full legislative body of the 
proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set 
forth in section 1; 

(f) fails to vote against any proposed constitutional 
amendment that would establish longer term limits than 
those in the proposed Congressional Term Limits 
Amendment set forth in section 1 regardless of any other 
actions in support of the proposed Congressional Term 
Limits Amendment set forth in section 1; 

(g) sponsors or cosponsors any proposed 
constitutional amendment or law that would increase 
term limits beyond those in the proposed Congressional 
Term Limits Amendment set forth in section 1; 

(h) fails in any way to ensure that all votes on the 
Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth in 
section 1 are recorded and made available to the public. 



29 



Initiative 132 (continued) 



(2) The information "DISREGARDED MONTANA 
VOTERS ON TERM LIMITS" shall not appear adjacent to 
the names of incumbent candidates for Congress if the 
Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth in 
section 1 is before the states for ratification or has become 
part of the United States Constitution. 

NEW SECTION Section 3. Ballot Information Regarding 
Congressional Term Limits - Nonincumbents' Pledge. 

(1) Non-incumbent candidates for United States Senator 
and Representative, and the Montana house and senate 
shall be given an opportunity to take a "Term Limits" 
pledge regarding Term Limits each time they file to run for 
such office. Those who decline to take the "Term Limits" 
pledge shall have the information "DECLINED TO 
PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" printed adjacent 
to their name on every primary and general election 
ballot. 

(2) The "Term Limits" pledge shall be offered to non- 
incumbent candidates for United States Senator and 
Representative, and the Montana house and senate until a 
Constitutional Amendment which limits the number of 
terms of United States Senators to no more than two and 
United States Representatives to no more than three shall 
have become part of our United States Constitution. 

(3) The "Term Limits" pledge that each non-incumbent 
candidate, set forth above, shall be offered is as follows: 

I support term limits and pledge to use all my . 

legislative powers to enact the following Amendment: 
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT 
Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of United 
States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
ratification of this amendment no person who has held 
the office of United States Representative or who then 
holds the office shall serve for more than two additional 
terms. 

Section 2. No person shall serve in the office of United 
States Senator for more than two terms, but upon 
ratification of this amendment no person who has held 
the office of United States Senator or who then holds the 
office shall serve for more than one additional term. 

Section 3. This article shall have no time limit within 
which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States. 

If elected, I pledge to vote in such a way that the 
designation "DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS ON 
TERM LIMITS" will not appear 
adjacent to my name. 
Signature of Candidate 

NEW SECTION Section 4. Ballot Information Regarding 
Congressional Term Limits - State Legislators. 

(1) The term "Application" in this Act shall be defined as 
an application to Congress pursuant to Article 5 of the 
United States Constitution passed by the senate and house 



of Montana as follows: 

We, the People and Legislature of the State of 
Montana, due to our desire to establish term limits on 
Congress, hereby make application to Congress, 
pursuant to our power under Article 5, to call a 
convention for proposing amendments to the 
Constitution. 

(2) Except as provided in subsections (3) through (5), the 
secretary of state shall ensure that all primary and general 
election ballots shall have the information 
"DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS ON TERM 
LIMITS" printed adjacent to the name of any respective 
member of the Montana house or senate who: 

(a) fails to vote in favor of the application set forth in 
subsection (1) when brought to a vote; 

(b) fails to second the application set forth in 
subsection (1) if it lacks for a second; 

(c) fails to vote in favor of all votes bringing the 
application set forth in subsection (1) before any 
committee or subcommittee upon which he or she serves; 

(d) fails to propose or otherwise bring to a vote of the 
full legislative body the application set forth in subsection 
(1) if it otherwise lacks a legislator who so proposes or 
brings to a vote of the full legislative body the application 
set forth in subsection (1); 

(e) fails to vote against any attempt to delay, table or 
otherwise prevent a vote by the full legislative body of the 
application set forth in subsection (1); 

(f) fails in any way to ensure that all votes on the 
application set forth in subsection (1) are recorded and 
made available to the public; 

(g) fails to vote against any change, addition or 
modification to the application set forth in subsection (1) 
except as may procedurally be necessary to ensure 
passage; 

(h) fails to vote in favor of the amendment set forth in 
section 1 if it is sent to the states for ratification; 

(i) fails to vote against any term limits amendment 
with longer terms if such an amendment is sent to the 
states for ratification. 

(3) The information "DISREGARDED MONTANA 
VOTERS ON TERM LIMITS" shall not appear adjacent to 
the names of candidates for the Montana house or senate 
as required by any of subsections 2(a) through 2(g) if the 
State of Montana has made an application to Congress for 
a convention for proposing amendments to the 
Constitution pursuant to this Act and such application has 
not been withdrawn or, the Congressional Term Limits 
Amendment set forth in section 1 has been submitted to 
the states for ratification. 

(4) The information "DISREGARDED MONTANA 
VOTERS ON TERM LIMITS" shall not appear adjacent to 
the names of candidates for the Montana house or senate 
as required by any of subsections (2)(h) through (2)(i) if the 
State of Montana has ratified the proposed Congressional 
Term Limits Amendment set forth in section 1 . 



30 



Initiative 132 (continued) 



(5) The information "DISREGARDED MONTANA 
VOTERS ON TERM LIMITS" shall not appear adjacent to 
the names of candidates for the Montana house or senate 
as required by any of subsections {2)(a) through {2)(i) if the 
proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set 
forth in section 1 has become part of the United States 
Constitution. 

NFW SECTION Section 5. Appeal of Ballot Information. 

(1) The Secretary of State shall be responsible to make an 
accurate determination as to whether a candidate for the 
federal or state legislature shall have placed adjacent to 
his or her name on the election ballot the information 
"DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS ON TERM 
LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT 
TERM LIMITS." 

(2) The Secretary of State shall consider timely submitted 
public comments prior to making the determination 
required in subsection (1) and may rely on such 
comments and any information submitted by the 
candidates in making the determination required in 
subsection (1). 

(3) The Secretary of State, in accordance with subsection 
(1) of this section shall determine and declare what 
information, if any, shall appear adjacent to the names of 
each incumbent state and federal legislator if he or she 
was to be a candidate in the next election. In the case of 
United States Representatives and United States Senators, 
this determination and declaration shall be made in a 
fashion necessary to ensure the orderly printing of primary 
and general election ballots with allowance made for all 
legal action provided in subsection (5) and (6) below, and 
shall be based upon each member of Congress's action 
during their current term of office and any action taken in 
any concluded term, if such action was taken after the 
determination and declaration was made by the Secretary 
of State in a previous election. In the case of incumbent 
state legislators, this determination and declaration shall 
be made not later than (30) days after the end of the 
regular session following each genera! election, and shall 
be based upon legislative action in the previous regular 
session and any action taken in any concluded term, if 
such action was taken after the determination and 
declaration was made by the Secretary of State in a 
previous election. 

(4) The Secretary of State shall determine and declare 
what information, if any, will appear adjacent to the 
names of non-incumbent candidates for the state and 
federal legislatures, not later than five (5) business days 
after the deadline for filing for the office. 

(5) If the Secretary of State makes the determination that 
the information "DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS 
ON TERM LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO 
SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" shall not be placed on the 
ballot adjacent to the name of a candidate for the federal 
or state legislature, any elector may appeal such decision 



within five (5) business days to the Montana Supreme 
Court as an original action or shall waive any right to 
appeal such decision; in which case the burden of proof 
shall be upon the Secretary of State to demonstrate by 
clear and convincing evidence that the candidate has met 
the requirements set forth in this Act and therefore should 
not have the information "DISREGARDED MONTANA 
VOTERS ON TERM LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO PLEDGE 
TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" printed on the ballot 
adjacent to the candidate's name. 

(6) If the Secretary of State determines that the information 
"DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS ON TERM 
LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT 
TERM LIMITS" shall be placed on the ballot adjacent to a 
candidate's name, the candidate may appeal such 
decision within five (5) business days to the Montana 
Supreme Court as an original action or shall waive any 
right to appeal such decision; in which case the burden of 
proof shall be upon the candidate to demonstrate by clear 
and convincing evidence that he or she should not have 
the information "DISREGARDED MONTANA VOTERS 
ON TERM LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO 
SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" printed on the ballot adjacent 
to the candidate's name. 

(7) The Supreme Court shall hear the appeal provided for 
in subsection (5) and issue a decision within 60 days. The 
Supreme Court shall hear the appeal provided for in 
subsection (6) and issue a decision not later than 61 days 
before the date of the election. 

NEW SECTION Section 6. Supreme Court Jurisdiction. 

Any legal challenge to this Act shall be filed as an original 
action before the Supreme Court of this state. 

NEV^ SECTION Section 7. Severability. If any portion, 
clause, or phrase of this Act is, for any reason, held to be 
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent 
jurisdiction, the remaining portions, clauses, and phrases 
shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and 
effect. 



31 



what is the Voter Information Pamphlet? 

The Voter Information Pamphlet (or VIP) is a publication 
printed by the Secretary of State to provide Montana 
voters with information on statewide ballot measures. 
The Secretary of State distributes the pamphlets to the 
county election administrators who mail a VIP to each 
household with a registered voter. 

Who writes the information in the VIPf 

The Attorney General writes an explanatory statement for 
each measure. The statement, not to exceed 100 words, 
is a true and impartial explanation of the purpose of each 
measure in easy to understand language. The Attorney 
General also prepares the fiscal statement, if necessary, 
and for and against statements for each issue. 

Pro and con arguments and rebuttals are written by the 
members of the appropriate committee. Arguments are 
limited to 500 words and rebuttals to 250 words. 
{Statements over these limits are printed only up to the 
500th or 250th word. All statements are printed verbatim.) 

What if I can't vote on election day? 

You can vote an absentee ballot if you cannot get to the 
polls because you: 1) expect to be absent from your 
precinct or county on election day, 2) are physically 



incapacitated, 3) suffer from chronic illness or general ill 
health, 4) are a handicapped or elderly voter assigned to 
an inaccessible polling place, or 5) have a health 
emergency between 5 p.m. on November 1st and noon 
on election day. 

If you qualify for an absentee ballot, contact your county 
election administrator (usually the clerk and recorder) to 
request an absentee ballot application. Absentee ballots 
may be requested starting August 22nd. Absentee ballot 
applications, except for health emergencies, will be 
accepted up to noon the day before the election. 

How can I find out if I am registered? 

If you have voted since the last presidential election, you 
are still registered to vote. If you are not sure if you are or 
where you are registered, you should contact your county 
election administrator. 

The registration deadline for the general election is 
October 7th. 

Who is eligible to register? 

Anyone who is a citizen of the U.S., at least eighteen 
years of age, and a resident of Montana and the county for 
thirty days by the date of the election may register to vote. 



Additional copies of this Voter Information Pamphlet are available upon request from your county election 
administrator or the Secretary of State, 1 -888-884-VOTE (8683). 



525 000 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $0.06 per copy, for a total of $31,431 .75 which 
includes $31,431 .75 for printing. Distribution costs paid for by county governments. This document printed on recycled paper. 



COUNTY ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR 
County Courthouse 



DO NOT FORWARD