(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)
See other formats

Full text of "2006 voter information pamphlet : an official publication of Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson"








OCr • 5 2006 



f« r iitli AV 


An official publication of 
Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson 

Montana Stale Library 


3 0864 1003 8412 5 

A Message from Secretary of State BradJohnson 

Dear Montana Voter, 

I am pleased lo pro\ ide this Voter Information Pamphlet to assist you in 
making decisions regarding how you will cast your vote on several 
initiatives that will be on the ballot during the General Election this year. 

The Montana Constitution reserves for Montanans the right to directly 
initiate change in our government. This is done through the initiative 
and referendum process where individuals, groups and the legislature propose constitutional 
or statutory changes. Citizens gather signatures on initiative petitions to have those proposed 
changes placed on the ballot so that all registered \oters may have a \oice in that decision. 
This year the ballot w ill include se\eral constitutional and statutory initiatives proposed by 
citizens as well as one constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature. 

In addition to the initiatives, I have included a number of items in this pamphlet designed to 
assist you in voting. You will tlnd information on each of the political parties as well as 
contact information for local election offices and facts regarding new changes in voting laws. 

You will also find more information regarding elections on my web site at vvww.sos.mt.gov , 
or call my office toll-free at 1-888-884-VoTE (8683). 

As Montana's Chief Elections Officer I cannot over stress the importance of informed 
participation in our democracy. Our government is never better than we demand it to be or 
worse than wc allow it to be. I urge each of you to carefully read this pamphlet, ask 
questions and be prepared to cast an informed vote during this General Election. Your vote 
is your voice in government. Make your voice be heard. 

Brad Johnson, Secretaiy of State 

Published in 2()()(i h\ ihc Office of the Montana Secretary of State. Cover photo of the inside steps of the State 
Capitol by Ste\en Kops. reprinted \s itii permission. 

If you would like to receive additional copies of the VIP, or would 
like to receive it in large print, in Braille, on a CD, electronically, 
online, or in another accessible format, please contact the Secretaiy of 
State's Office at 1-888-884-VOTE (8683), go to our website at 
www.sos.mt.gov , or email soseIection@mt.gov . 


What Is the Voter Information Pamphlet? 


Constitutional Amendment 43 

A legislative proposal to change the name of the state auditor to the insurance 

commissioner ^ 

Text of amendment " 

Arguments for and against and rebuttals 9 

Constitutional Initiative 97 

A citizen initiative to amend the Montana Constitution to limit the increase in 
appropriations to the combined growth rate of population and inflation, or the largest 

spending limit for any previous biennium 12 

Text of initiative -• ^ -^ 

Arguments for and against and rebuttals ^ 16 

Constitutional Initiative 98 

A citizen initiative to amend the Montana Constitution to provide for recall by petition 

of state court justices or judges for any reason 19 

Text of initiative 20 

Arguments for and against and rebuttals 22 

Initiative 151 

A citizen initiative to amend Montana law to raise the state minimum wage to the greater 
of either $6. 15 an hour or the federal minimum wage, plus an annual cost-of-living 

adjustment 2-> 

Text of initiative 26 

Arguments for and against and rebuttals 27 

Initiative 153 

A citizen initiative to amend Montana law to prohibit certain former state officials and 
staff from becoming licensed lobbyists within 24 months following their departure from" 

state government ■'^ 

Text of initiative ^ 1 

Arguments for and against and rebuttals 32 

Initiative 154 

A citizen initiative to amend Montana law to require governments to waive regulations 
that reduce property values unless they compensate owners, and prohibiting takings 

intended to transfer property to private parties 35 

Text of initiative ■ 36 

Arguments for and against and rebuttals 41 

Political Parties of Montana 44 

Voting in Montana Elections 48 

What's New for the 2006 Election Season 49 

How to Contact Your County Election Office 50 

Ballot Measure Worksheet 51 

What Is the Voter Information Pamphlet? 

The Voter Information Pamphlet (or VIP) is published 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 officials, who mail a VIP to each household with an active registered voter. 

Who writes the information in the VIP? 

The Attorney General writes an explanatory statement for each ballot measure. The statement, not to 
exceed 100 words, is required to be 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 committees appointed by the sponsors of the measures ' 
and by state officials. Arguments are limited to one page and rebuttals to a half page. All arguments and 
rebuttals are printed as filed by the committees and do not necessarily represent the views of the Secretary 
of State or the State of Montana. 

Can I get the VIP in a different format? 

If you would like to receive the Voter Information Pamphlet in large print, in Braille, on a CD. 
electronically, online, or in another accessible format, please contact the Secretary of State's Office at 1- 
-884-VOTE (8683). go to our website at vvww.sos.mt.gov . or email soselection@mt.gov . 

The Secretary of State has a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) at (406) 444-9068. Audio and 
large-print versions of the VDP are available by request from local libraries throughout the state. 

For more information on elections, visit the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.mt.gov . You also 
may contact the office directly on a toll-free hotline set up to answer questions on registering and voting; 
that number is 1-888-884-VOTE (8683). 

The information that follows for each proposed ballot issue is the official ballot laftguage written 
by the Attorney General's office, the text of each ballot issue, and the arguments and rebuttals for 
and against each ballot issue. The arguments and rebuttals have been prepared by each 
committee appointed to support each ballot issue and each committee appointed to oppose each 
ballot issue. The opinions stated in the arguments and rebuttals do not necessarily represent the 
views of the Secretary of State or the State of Montana. The State also does not guarantee the 
truth or accuracy of any statement made in the arguments or rebuttals. 

Constitutional Amendment No. 43 



The 2005 Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend 
Montana's Constitution to change the name of the office of state auditor to the 
insurance commissioner. 

[] FOR changing the name of the state auditor to the insurance 

[] AGAINST changing the name of the state auditor to the insurance 

The PROPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by State 
Senator Duane Grimes and State Representative Dave Gallik. 

The OPPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by State 
Representative Wayne Stahl. 


Section 1. Article FV, section 8, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 8. Limitation on terms of office. ( 1 ) The secretary of state or other authorized official shall 
not certify a candidate's nomination or election to, or print or cause to be printed on any ballot the name 
of a candidate for, one of the following offices if, at the end of the current term of that office, the 
candidate will have served in that office or had he not resigned or been recalled would have served in that 

(a) 8 or more years in any 16-year period as governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, stete 
a«4rteF insurance commissioner , attorney general, or superintendent of public instruction; 

(b) 8 or more years in any 16-year period as a state representative; 

(c) 8 or more years in any 16-year period as a state senator; 

(d) 6 or more years in any 12-year period as a member of the U.S. house of representatives; and 

(e) 12 or more years in any 24-year period as a member of the U.S. senate. 

(2) When computing time served for purposes of subsection (1), the provisions of subsection (1) do 
not apply to time served in terms that end during or prior to January 1993. 

(3) Nothing contained herein shall preclude an otherwise qualified candidate from being certified as 
nominated or elected by virtue of write-in votes cast for said candidate." 

Section 2. Article VI, section 1, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 1. Officers. (1) The executive branch includes a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of 
state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, and auditor insurance commissioner . 

(2) Each holds office for a term of four years which begins on the first Monday of January next 
succeeding election, and until a successor is elected and qualified. 

(3) Each shall reside at the seat of government, there keep the public records of his office, and 
perform such other duties as are provided in this constitution and by law." 

Section 3. Article VI, section 2, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 2. Election. ( 1 ) The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, 

superintendent of public instruction, and auditor insurance commissioner shall be elected by the qualified 

electors at a general election provided by law. 

(2) Each candidate for governor shall file jointly with a candidate for lieutenant governor in 
primary elections, or so otherwise comply with nomination procedures provided by law that the offices of 
governor and lieutenant governor are voted upon together in primary and general elections." 

Section 4. Article VI, section 3, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Sections. Qualifications. (1) No person shall be eligible to the office of governor, lieutenant 
governor, secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, or auditor insurance 
commissioner unless he is 25 years of age or older at the time of his election. In addition, each shall be a 
citizen of the United States who has resided within the state two years next preceding his election. 

(2) Any person with the foregoing qualifications is eligible to the office of attorney general if an 
attorney in good standing admitted to practice law in Montana who has engaged in the active practice 
thereof for at least five years before election. 

(3) The superintendent of public instruction shall have such educational qualifications as are 
provided by law." 

Section 5. Article VI, secUon 4, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 4. Duties. (1) The executive power is vested in the governor who shall see that the laws are 
faithfully executed. He shall have such other duties as are provided in this constitution and by law. 

(2) The lieutenant governor shall perform the duties provided by law and those delegated to him 
by the governor. No power specifically vested in the govemdr by this constitution may be delegated to the 
lieutenant governor. 

(3) The secretary of state shall maintain official records of the executive branch and of the acts of 
the legislature, as provided by law. He shall keep the great seal of the state of Montana and perform any 
other duties provided by law. 

(4) The attorney general is the legal officer of the state and shall have the duties and powers 
provided by law. 

(5) The superintendent of public instruction and the auditor insurance commissioner shall have 
such duties as are provided by law." 

Section 6. Article VI, section 6, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 6. Vacancy in office. ( 1) If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant by his 
succession to the office of governor, or by his death, resignation, or disability as determined by law, the 

governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office for the remainder of the term. If both the 
elected governor and the elected lieutenant governor become unable to serve in the office of governor, 
succession to the respective offices shall be as provided by law for the period until the next general 
election. Then, a governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected to fill the remainder of the original 

(2) If the office of secretary of state, attorney general, auditor insurance commissioner , or 
superintendent of public instruction becomes vacant by death, resignation, or disability as determined by 
law, the governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office until the next general election and 
until a successor is elected and qualified. The person elected to fill a vacancy shall hold the office until 
the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was elected." - 

Section 7. Article VI, section 7, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 7. 20 departments. All executive and administrative offices, boards, bureaus, commissions, 
agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch (except for the office of governor, lieutenant 
governor, secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, and auditor insurance 
commissioner ) and their respective functions, powers, and duties, shall be allocated by law among not 
more than 20 principal departments so as to provide an orderly arrangement in the administrative 
organization of state government. Temporary commissions may be established by law and need not be 
allocated within a department." 

Section 8. Article X, section 4, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 4. Board of land commissioners. The governor, superintendent of public instruction, 
auditor insurance commissioner , secretary of state, and attorney general constitute the board of land 
commissioners. It has the authority to direct, control, lease, exchange, and sell school lands and lands 
which have been or may be granted for the support and benefit of the various state educational 
institutions, under such regulations and restrictions as may be provided by law." 

Section 9. Submission to electorate. This amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of 
Montana at the general election to be held in November 2006 by printing on the ballot the full title of this 
act and the following: 

[ 1 FOR changing the name of the state auditor to the insurance commissioner. 

[] AGAINST changing the name of the state auditor to the insurance commissioner. 

Argument For C-43 

The 2005 Legislature has asked that the people of Montana vote on whether to amend the 
Montana State Constitution to change the name of the State Auditor to Insurance Commissioner. The 
citizens of Montana would be better served by adopting this name change. 

The name of an office created by the state constitution should reflect the purpose of the office and 
what the office holder does. Currently the Montana State Auditor does not audit in the traditional sense. 
The term "state auditor" is confusing to consumers and causes misunderstandings and delays. Many 
states use the name "insurance commissioner" for this type of office because it best describes the main 
function of the office, which is the regulation of the insurance industry. 

When dealing with issues related to insurance, many find these issues to be complex and at times 
need to seek assistance. Intuitively, a person seeking information from the government on issues of 
insurance or issues related to securities, which the State Auditor also regulates, would start their search 
for assistance by looking up the term "insurance." However, unless you are aware that the State Auditor 
regulates the insurance and securities industry you would not make the connection that you would need 
assistance from the State Auditor. 

All Montanans will deal with issues of insurance throughout their lives. Indeed, if we want to 
drive on the roads of this great state we are required to carry liability insurance. Whether it is vehicle 
insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, or numerous other lines of insurance available, there is one 
office in Montana that is in charge of regulation. Let's make sure that the name of the office is 
descriptive of what that office does. 

More and more time demands are being placed upon us. Anything that could streamline and 
assist the tasks in our daily lives would be a welcome change. Changing the name from "state auditor" to 
"insurance commissioner" is one action we can collectively take to simplify Montanans' lives and make 
state government more straightforward and understandable. 

Argument Against C-43 

The Constitution of the State of Montana should never be changed without a very compelling reason. 
Changing the name of the State Auditor's Office to the Insurance Commissioner to align the duties of the 
office with the title of that office is not a compelling reason. This constitutional amendment only applies a 
band aid to a real problem in state government and does not fit the duties of the office to the title of the 

Currently the Auditor's Office regulates insurance companies and securities companies. Many insurance 
companies' business operations include banking. Many banks also deal in insurance. However, the 
banking industry in Montana is regulated by the Department of Administration. Insurance, banking, and 
securities industries should all be regulated by one agency. The legislature should consolidate those 
regulatory duties and then ask the people of Montana to change the name of the office. That name should 
reflect all of the duties of the office to allow easy recognition in case of complaints or other problems. 
Examplesmight include: the Office of Insurance, Banking, and Securities, or the Office of the 
Commissioner of Insurance, Securities, and Banking. 

The Constitutional Convention of 1972 contemplated changing the name of this office but decided against 
that action. 

Another option is eliminating the State Auditor's Office as a constitutionally-mandated office and 
transferring these duties to another department. 

Changing the name of a constitutionally-mandated office will be expensive. The costs of changing web 
sites, computer programs, public notifications, general supplies, labor, etc. cannot be ignored. 

This constitutional amendment needs to be voted down. 


Proponents' Rebuttal of Argument Against C-43 

Those opposing C-43 argue that the Legislature should do a bureaucratic shuffle of the duties of 
the State Auditor's Office. For good reason the Legislature has not done this agency shuffling. The 
opponents also propose another option, eliminate the Auditor's Office. It is essential that we have our 
State protecting consumers of insurance products and guarding against securities scams, by an 
independently elected official with a title reflecting what that office does. This is too important of a 
responsibility to simply shuffle to a Department whose department head is not directly responsible to the 
people who elected them. Although, it makes for interesting conversation to discuss the bureaucratic 
shuffle or the elimination of the office, that is not before the citizens of Montana for a vote. What 
Montanans have been asked to vote on is whether the office should be more user-friendly by giving it a 
name that reflects exactly what that office does. This is a compelling reason and it makes sense for the 
people of Montana to change the name of the office to Insurance Commissioner. C-43 deserves your 

Opponent's Rebuttol of Argument for Approvol of C-43 

Changing the name of the State Auditor to the Insurance Commissioner may solve the name recognition 
problem for citizens with insurance questions and complaints, but citizens with problems and complaints 
about securities will still be confused. We should not frivolously change the constitution. Amendment C- 
43 only corrects part of the problem. We must do better. 

Vote no on C-43 


Constitutional Initiative No. 97 


The Montana Constitution currently prohibits appropriations by the legislature that 
exceed anticipated revenue. This measure adds a constitutional spending limit that 
would prohibit increases in appropriations greater than the combined growth rate 
of population and inflation. It allows appropriations up to the largest spending 
limit for any previous biennium. Emergencies, debt payments, pro-rata tax rebates, 
various appropriations expressly provided by the Montana Constitution, and 
expenditures from funding sources including the federal government, 
constitutionally created trusts, and certain user fees are not included in the 
spending limit. The legislature may exceed the spending limit only with voter 

This measure may require reduced future expenditures in several areas of 
government services where caseloads historically have grown at a rate exceeding 
combined growth in population and inflation, such as correctional population and 
Medicaid recipients, or may require reduced future expenditures in other areas to 
offset those increasing caseload costs. 

[1 FOR limiting the increase in appropriations to the combined growth rate of 
population and inflation, or the largest spending limit for any previous 

[] AGAINST limiting the increase in appropriations to the combined growth 
rate of population and inflation, or the largest spending liinit for any 
previous biennium. 

The PROPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by 
Representative Scott Mendenhall, Senator Joe Balyeat,-CPA, and Representative 
George Everett. ■ ' 

The OPPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by Douglas 
H. Neil. County Commissioner Daniel D. Watson. Teresa Olcott Cohea, Max Logan, 
and Judie Woodhouse. 




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

"Article VUI, section 9. Balanced budget and spending limit . (1) Appropriations by the 
legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue and are subject to a state spending limit prohibiting 
appropriations for a biennium of a total amount of money that is more than the greater of the two 
following amounts: 

(a) the "state spending limit" which shall be the sum of the total amount of legislative 
appropriations for the immediately preceding biennium and the product of that total amount 
of a ppropriations multiplied by the sum of the percentage change in inflation plus the 
percentage change in state population; or 

(b) The largest state spending limit as calculated under subsection (l)(a) for any previous 

- (2) For the purposes of this section "inflation" means the change for the most recently published 
two-year period preceding the commencement of a biennial legislative session, expressed as a percentage 
in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, west region, all items as calculated by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, or as calculated in a successor index. 

(3) For purposes of this section, state population shall be determined by the most recently 
published annual federal census estimates for Montana representing the nearest two-year period preceding 
the commencement of a biennial legislative session, and such number shall be adjusted every decade to 
match the results of federal census for Montana. 

(4) If the legislature transfers the responsibility for providing a government service previously 
provided by the state to local or tribal governments, the state spending limit as calculated pursuant to 
subsection (1) shall be reduced accordingly in an amount that reflects the actual cost reduction to the 
state, or in the cases where costs for the responsibility were shared the reduction amount shall reflect the 
state's share. 

(5) The legislature may only attain the authority to appropriate in excess of the state spending 
limit with approval by a vote of the people submitted in accordance with Article III, section 5. 
Accordingly, a ballot question may be presented to voters for the approval or rejection of an authority to 
exceed the state spending limit by a specified amount, but may not be presented in a form requesting 
voter approval or rejection of a specific appropriation or appropriations. 

(6) For the purposes of this section, "the total amount of legislative appropriations" shall include 
all legislative appropriations except the following categories: 

(a) moneys designated by the legislature for a reserve fund to be used as safeguard against 
shortfalls in state revenue below the state spending limit. The transfer of money between the reserve fund 
and the state treasury is not an appropriation for purposes of calculating the state spending lim it; however, 
any moneys that are held in such a fund which are later appropriated from the state treasury or 
appropriated directly from the reserve fund must be included within the total amount of legislative 
appropriations unless otherwise exempt under this subsection (6); 


(b) appropriations for emergencies as may be defined by law and threats to the continuity of 
government if appropriated: 

(i) pursuant to Article III, section 2. for the purposes of legislative actions to ensure continuity of 
government during periods of emergency or enemy attack; 

(ii) by vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the members of each house of the legislature if the 
appropriation is for a matter that meets the definition of an emergency pursuant to law and is not 
anticipated to be an ongoing expense and is not intended to fund ordinary operations of government: 

(iii) pursuant to law, by a majority vote, of each house of the legislature in an amount that does 
not exceed $16 million, adjusted for inflation and population growth in a manner similar to section 1. 
subsection ( 1) as of the effective date of [this amendment!; or 

(iv) pursuant to Article VI. section 13, where the governor calls out the militia to aid in the 
execution of laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters. 

(c) appropriations of bond proceeds or other funds derived from borrowing if payment of 
principal and interest on such borrowing is applied to the state spending limit or otherwise excluded under 
subsection 6(d); 

(d) payment of principal and interest on state general obligation bonds, bonded indebtedness or 
other long-term debt issued or incurred prior to January 1, 2007. and on any state general obligation 
bonds issued after January 1. 2007. if such bonds are also approved by voters; 

(e) appropriations of moneys received from the federal government; 

(f) appropriations of moneys voluntarily donated to the state or a state agency; 

(g) appropriations of the proceeds from the sale of property at full market value to non- 
governmental entities; 

(h) money appropriated for pro-rata tax rebates; 

(i) money appropriated for refunds of user charges or fees, and appropriations funded by user 
charges or fees to the extent that such charges or fees reasonably reflect the actual cost to the state of 
providing such goods or services and the purchase by the user is discretionary and not a requirement to 
operate a business, seek employment in a trade or practice in a profession; 

(i) appropriations from any constitutionally created trust that are necessary to the administration 
of such trust, including appropriations of moneys that are income earned on assets in permanent 
endowment funds, trust funds, deferred compensation funds or pension funds that are credited to those 
funds and expended to meet the obligations of the funds pursuant to the constitutional provision creating 
the fund, including administrative expenses to operate any such funds, which include, but are not limited 
to appropriations made pursuant to: 

(i) the public school fund pursuant to Article X; 

(ii) the public retirement system pursuant to Article VIII. section 15; 

(iii) the resource indemnity trust pursuant to Article IX. section 2 for the reclamation of lands 
disturbed by the taking of natural resources; 

(iv) the principal and interest from the coal severance trust fund pursuant to Article IX. section 5; 

(v) the noxious weed management trust fund pursuant to Article IX. section 6; or 

(vi) the tobacco settlement trust fund pursuant to Article XII. section 4; 

(k) appropriations of highway revenues pursuant to Article VIII. section 6; ^ 


(1) appropriations made by the legislature in fulfillment of obligations to provide for 
identification, acquisition, restoration, enhancement, preservation, and administration of cultural 
resources pursuant to Article IX. section 4; 

(m) appropriations for special sessions of the legislature made pursuant to Article V. section 6. or 
Article VI. section 11; 

(n) appropriations for districting and apportionment made pursuant to Article V. section 14; 

(o) appropriations of special levies on livestock and on agricultural commodities for disease 
control and indemnification, predator control, and livestock and commodity inspection, protection, 
research, and promotion made pursuant to Article XII. section 1(2); 

(p) appropriations made by the legislature in fulfillment of the constitutional obligation to fund an 
officer of consumer counsel so that consumer interests are represented before the public service 
commission or successor agency, pursuant to Article XIII. section 2; and 

(q) appropriations for a constitutional convention made pursuant to Article IX. section 5. 

(7) If a court of competent jurisdiction in a final order shall adjudge any spending category, or 
revenue source, exempt from [this amendment], the process of computing the state spending limit shall be 
adjusted accordingly and the remaining provisions shall be in full force and effect . 

(8) Any person residing in Montana or doing business in Montana has standing to enforce these 
provisions and, if successful, shall be awarded legal costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

(9) It is the intent of the voters in passing [this amendment] that interpretations which better 
restrain growth in government spending are favored over interpretations which do not restrain such 

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Saving clause. This amendment does not affect rights and duties that 
matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were begun before [the effective date of this 

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Severability. If a part of this amendment is invalid, all valid parts that are 
severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If 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 

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Applicability. This amendment applies to legislative proceedings begun 
after [the effective date of this amendment], and applies to the legislative session commencing in 2007. 
using the biennial budget adopted in 2005 as the immediate preceding biennium plus and including 
appropriations from the December, 2005 special session of the legislature. 

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Effective date. This amendment is effective upon approval by the electorate. 


Argument For CI-97 

> CI-97 is Montana's Stop Over-Spending (SOS) initiative . It caps state government spending 
growth to the combined growth in inflation plus population; unless the voters approve higher 
spending. 84,000 Montanans signed CI-97, almost twtce the required number. 

> Montana currently spends $8.2 billion per biennium for a population of less than one million people. 
Each biennium, Montana government spends $35,000 for every family of four - even though the 
average wages are only about $27,000 annually! 

> Montana's current budget increased $1 billion over the last budget - the highest increase in 

> This huge increase occurred because Montana's politicians ignored Montana's old statutory 

spending cap. For 24 years, Montana's spending cap controlled excessive budget increases, while still 
adequately funding all government functions; with only minor inadvertent cap violations. 

> Unfortunately, last year Montana's Attorney General declared the statutory spending cap 

unconstitutional. To restore a budget cap, Montanans must vote for a constitutional ballot issue - CI- 

> Similar to Montana's old cap, CI-97 doesn't cut any government programs. CI-97 allows the state 
budget to grow to meet needs - inflation plus population growth. 

> Due to Montana Supreme Courtrulings, CI-97 can only protect the General Fund from excess 
spending growth - which only represents 38% of Montana's total budget. 

> CI-97 is flexible. It has numerous exclusions, including: all federal money, trust funds, special 
revenue accounts (like highway construction), rainy-day reserve funds, emergencies, and roughly 15 
other exemptions. 

> CI-97 is reasonable. 26 other states already have spending limitations; and several others have 
initiatives in progress. 

> CI-97 vastly improves upon other spending caps; like Colorado's TABOR. Unlike TABOR, CI-97 
doesn't ratchet spending backward during recession. CI-97" s flexibility encourages politicians to 
establish a rainy-day emergency fund and rebate excess taxes. 

> CI-97 puts voters in charge of their government. If state politicians want to spend more than 
allowed, they have to ask Montana voters; who can always be trusted to make the right decision. Last 
fall, Colorado voters proved this "ultimate safety valve" works by approving excess spending. 

> Unfortunately, unlike Colorado, Montana's government spending is outrageous. Nationwide, 
Colorado spending (as a percentage of income) is the lowest, while Montana spending is one of the 

> Academic research proves excess government spending causes slow wage growth. It's no surprise 
Montana wages rank near the bottom of the nation's barrel. Colorado, conversely, has shown some of 
the nation's fastest wage growth during its years under TABOR. Washington and Oklahoma showed 
similar fast economic growth while under tax and expenditure limitations. 

This proves CI-97 is the right choice - politicians should live by the same budgeting standards that 
Montana families and businesses live by every day. Our families can't just vote themselves a raise to 
spend beyond our means, and under CI-97, politicians can't either. CI-97 will stop out-of-control 
government spending during boom times, and instead encourage responsible saving for future lean 
times. Or. better yet - government can give the money back to taxpayers when it collects e.xcess taxes. 

y VOTE YES on CI-97. 


Argument Against CI-97 

CI-97 (SOS) is an out-of-state gimmick that creates problems rather than solutions. It limits state 
spending to a rigid formula that slowly strangles the state budget, hamstringing the state's ability to 
provide basic public services. 

CI-97 is not a homegrown effort. National groups are spending millions to push this measure in 
Montana and elsewhere. We don't need their out-of-state agenda forced on Montana. Montana's 
constitution already requires a balanced state budget that protects against overspending. (Article VIII, 
Section 9) 

Our concerns about CI-97 are not speculation. They are based on what happened in Colorado, the 
only state with a measure like CI-97. Colorado's version of CI-97 harmed public health and safety, K-12 
and higher education, firefighting and police services, agriculture, and roads. Seniors lost their property 
tax exemption and saw major cuts in home health care. Fees - such as fishing, hunting, and car licenses 
and water user fees - rose drastically in Colorado. 

Fed up, Coloradans voted to suspend their version of CI-97 in 2005. The state's busmess 
community led the charge to suspend it. 

Governor Schweitzer wants to give a property tax rebate of $400 to Montana homeowners. Rebates 
under CI-97 would have to be on a pro-rata basis, benefiting out-of-state corporations and wealthy people 
the most. Montana homeowners lose under CI-97. 

In Montana, we know too well what happens when state budget cuts go too far: the burden falls on 
local taxpayers, and property taxes rise. We've seen it for years with school funding. If CI-97 hog-ties 
Montana's state budget, counties will see increased pressure to make up for the shortfalls. 

Even in good economic times when the state has more revenue, the money can't be used to improve 
roads and schools or invest in economic development. The CI-97 cap would not allow it. 

CI-97 invites frivolous lawsuits by allowing anyone.even out-of-state individuals and corporations 
with interests in Montana, to sue the state over compliance. Montana taxpayers would pay for these 
lawsuits. Because the CI-97 language is so complex, we can expect plenty of lawsuits. 

In our representative democracy, we elect people to make tough decisions and respond to citizens' 
concerns. CI-97 removes the ability of elected officials to make important budget decisions and gives that 
authority to a rigid formula. This is a radical and permanent change to Montana's constitution that will 
make public officials less accountable. 

Twenty-one states recently considered and rejected measures like CI-97. Republicans and 
Democrats in these states worked together against this bad idea, just as they have in Montana. Colorado 
remains the only state to pass it, and they recently suspended it. 

CI-97 is nothing but a shell game that would hurt the people of Montana, raise fees and property 
taxes, and keep average Montanans paying the bill -just as in Colorado. We should learn from 
Colorado's mistake and vote against CI-97. 


Proponents' Rebuttal of Argument Against CI-97 

Opponents' fear-filled fiction vs. the facts- 

■ Because Montana' s statutory cap was overturned, two Montana legislators proposed CI-97 at 
2005's special session. Almost half Montana 's legislators supported their proposal. 

■ Non -Montana national organizations are spending bundles against CI-97 - statewide mailings, 
fulltime staff, imported phony "experts"... 

■ Opponents claim problems may occur "when state budget cuts go too far"; that's completely irrelevant 
because CI-97 doesn't cut any state budgets . CI-97 allows them reasonable growth - by inflation plus 
population increases. 

■ Montana's current balanced budget provision doesn't stop over-spending. Tax-and-spend 
politicians keep over-spending, while increasing taxes to balance budgets. 

■ 25 states besides Colorado have spending caps. 

■ CI-97 vastly improves Colorado's TABOR. No budget downsizing, no overall budget limit, 
numerous exemptions (i.e., federal funding) allowing unrestricted growth for 62% of Montana's budget, 
and reasonable growth for 38% (discretionary spending). 

■ Fee increases? Montana's CI-97 doesn't even contain the tax limitation component which caused 
Colorado to raise fees instead. CI-97 actually discourages large fee intreases because politicians 
couldn't spend more than CI-97's allowable budget increases anyway. 

■ CI-97 does mirror TABOR's voter rights - Coloradoans got to vote on (and approved) excess 
spending last fall. TABOR was validated, not eliminated - voters can be trusted to do what's best. 

■ CI-97 doesn't bar flat $400 rebates - Rebates are simply part of the governor's budget. Additional 
proportionate tax refunds could occur beyond the budget limit. 

■ Politicians don't swear to stop over-spending, they do swear to uphold Montana's constitution. 
No lawsuits will occur if politicians comply. 

That's why Montana needs a constitutional spending cap - CI-97! 

Opponents' Rebuttal of Araument for Approval of CI-97 

Unfortunately, CI-97 proponents attempt to mislead voters with bogus numbers and arguments. 

• CI-97 barely qualified for the ballot. Supporters claim they gathered 84,000 signatures. Out-of-state 
groups pushing CI-97 brought in out-of-state petitioners and paid them per signature. But only 48,016 
signatures were certified as valid . The rest were fraudulent, duplicates, or otherwise invalid. 

• CI-97' s rigid formula (inflation-plus-population) is unworkable. It will not allow the state to keep up 
with the cost of providing services -just as in Colorado. 

• Inflation (Consumer Price Index) measures what consumers buy, not what state government 
buys. The state buys things like firefighting and health services. These costs increase much 
faster than the CPI . 

• Overall population does not reflect the rapid growth in Montana's senior population, which 
relies more on public services. 

• CI-97 affects more than Montana's general fund. It will cause higher fees and local property taxes by 
shifting the burden of funding services to local governments. 

• The $8.2 billion proponents mention includes billions in federal support funds. To claim it's all 
state spending is grossly misleading . 

• Montana is not a big-spending state. We rank in the bottom third in government spending as a 
percentage of income. (Bureau of Economic Analysis) 

Job and wage growth in Montana are now increasing faster than the national average. (Bureau of Labor 
Statistics) We are finally headed in the right direction. Why gamble on CI-97, another out-of-state 
gimmick like energy deregulation? Vote NO on CI-97. 


Constitutional Initiative No. 98 


Montana statutes currently provide for the recall of public officials, 
including state court justices or judges, for physical or mental lack of 
fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official 
misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. This measure amends the 
Montana Constitution to provide for recall by petition of state court 
justices or judges for any reason. It is effective upon approval. 

[] FOR amending the Montana Constitution to provide for recall 
by petition of state court justices or judges for any reason. 

[] AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution to provide for 
recall by petition of state court justices or judges for any 

The PROPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by State 
Representative Edward B. Butcher, State Representative Diane Rice, and State 
Representative Michael Lange. 

The OPPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by the 
Honorable John C. Harrison, former Montana Supreme Court Justice; the 
Honorable Jean Turnage, former Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice; and the 
Honorable John C. Sheehy, former Montana Supreme Court Justice. 




Section 1. Article VII is amended to read: 

NEW SECTION. [Section 12]. (1) This amendment shall subject to recall each elected justice or 
judge of the state or its, political subdivisions including a justice or judge appointed to an elected judicial 

(2) A petition for recall may be filed by up to three qualified electors serving as chief petitioners. 
The chief petitioners shall: 

(a) provide a justification statement, not exceeding 200 words, declaring the reasons for the 

(b) circulate the petition in an approved form; and 

(c) file the signed petitions with the appropriate election administrator for verification and 

(3) No petition for recall may be filed sooner than 60 days following the time the justice or judge 
takes office. 

(4) The sufficiency of the justification statement required under subsection (2) is a political 
question answered solely by the qualified electors participating in the recall election and no judicial recall 
petition shall otherwise be subject to judicial inquiry or review. The justification statement is sufficient if 
it sets forth any reason acknowledging electoral dissatisfaction with a justice or judge notwithstanding 
good faith attempts to perform the duties of the office. 

(5) Notwithstanding the review protections granted under subsection (3) a petitioner or petitioners 
providing a justification statement shall not be shielded from responsibility for any untrue statements 
contained in the justification statement. 

(6) Prior to circulation, a recall petition shall be approved as to form. The appropriate elections 
officer is the officer who is provided by law to accept the declaration of nomination or petition for 
nomination for such office. A judicial recall petition shall be examined for form and shall be approved or 
denied for circulation within three business days. A petition shall be approved as to form if it contains a 
justification statement and includes a circulation sheet that includes signer information categories sufficient 
to identify qualified electors signing the petition. 

(7) Signed circulation sheets containing the required number of signatures shall be submitted to the 
officer responsible for registration of electors in the county in which the signatures were obtained within 3 



months of the time the petition was approved. The required number of signatures shall serve as prima facie 
evidence of a completed recall that is qualified for election. The required number of signatures shall be: 

(a) for an office of justice or judge subject to statewide election, at least 10% of the number of votes 
cast in the previous election to fill that office; or 

(b) for any other office of a justice or judge, at least 15% of the number of votes cast in the previous 
election to fill that judicial office. 

(8) The county clerk in each county in which a judicial recall petition is submitted shall have up to 
15 business days to examine the filed signatures and determine whether invalid signatures, if any, exist in 
such number so as to render the filing incomplete. A recall petition meeting prima facie filing requirements 
shall not be determined incomplete unless a sufficient number of invalid signatures is identified. The clerk 
shall certify such to the appropriate elections officer with whom the recall petition is to be filed. 

(9) In the case of a statewide election the secretary of state shall have 10 days to tabulate certified 
signatures from thecounty; and in the case of districts which are not statewide districts the appropriate 
election officer or officers shall have 5 days to tabulate certified signatures. 

(10) A special election shall be held on the question of recall within 75 days of the filing of a 
complete recall petition; however, if an election is already scheduled for that electoral district within 90 
days of filing, the question of recall may be included in such election. The call for a special election shall be 
made by the governor in the case of an office subject to statewide election or by the official(s) authorized to 
call a special election for a political subdivision in the case of all other offices. 

(11) If a justice or judge prevailed in a recall vote once during a term of office, the legislature may 
require the posting of a bond by any subsequent chief petitioners in an amount sufficient to offset the 
government cost of a subsequent unsuccessful recall election during that term of office. 

(12) All other procedural statutory recall provisions not inconsistent with the design of this 
amendment may be provided by law. This amendment is self-executing and shall supplant any 
inconsistent statutory recall provisions. This amendment provides a method of removing justices and 
judges in addition to Article VII, section 11, and does not exist as a substitute for Article VII, section 11. 

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Severability. If part of this amendment is invalid all valid parts 
remain in effect. If 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. Saving clause. This amendment does not affect rights and duties 
that matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this 

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Effective date. This amendment is effective upon approval by the 


Argument For CI-98 

We Americans have a unique relationship to our courts. Judges are seen as public servants, who must 
rule fairly and be accountable to the people. In Montana, where judges are elected for very long terms, 
accountability is only meaningful if the people can democratically remove bad and biased judges between 
elections. Yet, our current recall law is so weak that it protects bad judges and makes recall almost 
impossible. CI-98 re-establishes judicial accountability with a recall process that is accessible, yet 
intentionally difficult to abuse. 

Everyone deserves a good judge. The vast majority of judges do an admirable job. But what of those 
few who don't? Those who may rule with an obvious bias or political agenda? Those who legislate from 
the bench? Those who put our families and communities in peril by turning violent criminals and 
pedophiles out on the streets? Those who trample our constitutional rights? How would you feel if you 
were a victim of such a judge, and knew that in Montana, nothing could be done? 

A fundamental democratic right. In 1976, the people passed an initiative aimed at guaranteeing our 
right to recall any elected officials, including judges, who abuse their power. But a few months later, it 
was gutted when the legislature created "grounds" for recall so narrow and so restrictive, that since that 
time, the people have not been able to recall a single judge, no matter how awful his or her record. 

Who judges the judges? CI-98 provides the opportunity to take a measured and serious look at a judge's 
performance, and when that performance is truly deplorable, to remove the person from office. Here is 
how it would work: 

• After the judge is in office at least 60 days, a petition may be circulated, stating the reasons for 
the recall. These reasons may not be overruled by another judge. 

• Petitioners have 3 months to gather signatures representing at least 10 percent of the total votes 
cast in a previous statewide election (15% for local races.) 

• If the petition is successful, a special election will be held within 75 days, or within 90 days of 
another election. If the judge or justice wins the election, any future recall efforts must cover all 
costs up front. 

Why is CI-98 so needed? While judges and supreme court justices are subject to elections every 6 to 8 
years, poor judges can create enormous abuse and hardship while serving their terms. That is precisely 
why, in a free society, constitutions provide for the more immediate remedy of recall, in extreme 

Recall of any elected official should never be taken lightly. The very strict requirements of CI-98 ensure 
that it will not be used as a casual means of political harassment. But it will be a powerful tool for 
judicial accountability and democratic oversight of a branch of government that for too long has been too 
removed from the will of the people. 


Argument Against CI-98 

Montana's electors should reject Constitutional Initiative No. 98. 

Montana already has, since 1976, a sensible and workable Recall Act that applies not only to justices and 
judges but to every person holding an elective public office. The present Recall Act requires as a basis 
for a Recall Petition that public officers are lacking in physical or mental fitness, are incompetent, have 
violated the oath of office, have committed official misconduct or a felony. In other words, the public 
officer must be correctly accused of a wrongful act to be required to face a recall election. 

Initiative 98 provides that 3 electors may file a recall petition against a justice or judge for any reason, 
claiming judicial dissatisfaction with the justice or judge. 

The rights and protection of our citizens are dependent upon a fair, impartial and unbiased judiciary. If the 
judges were confronted with the threat of constant and repeated recall elections, they would be distracted 
from the performance of their duties and subjected to great expense in defending recall elections. 

Consider that when a judge makes a decision that is fair, impartial and a correct application of the law and 
evidence, he or she may nevertheless be faced with a recall election. In any contested court proceeding, 
including bitter divorce cases, one of the parties will be the losing party and of course dissatisfied. 

Consider a criminal case where a person is wrongfully accused of crime and the evidence used to convict 
is obtained by clear violations of the Constitution, a judge must deny such offered evidence and dismiss 
the case. The judge that upheld constitutional protections may face a recall election. 

Constitutional Initiative No. 98 (CI-98) is bad public policy, unwise and unneeded and should be rejected 
by the electorate. 


Proponents' Rebuttal of Argument Against CI-98 

Saying Montana citizens have a right to recall is sort of like claiming that communist Russia had free 
elections. In both cases, there may be a "law" on the books, but that doesn't mean you can exercise your 
rights in any meaningful way. 

Here is the record: in the twenty-nine years that the Recall Act has existed, every official who challenged 
his recall on the "grounds" the legislature created, has had the recall action thrown out by a judge. 
Opponents call this "sensible and workable." A law that will not allow us to challenge judges who throw 
violent criminals and pedophiles out on the street, "legislate" radical political agendas or destroy our 
constitutional freedoms. Currently, not even blatant bias is "acceptable" grounds for recall. 

Opponents' arguments reflect the premise that we cannot be trusted with the right to recall bad judges, 
because we'd retaliate against good judges for petty reasons. They say if someone gets mad over a 
divorce ruling, they will gather thousands of signatures and get the judge recalled. Utter nonsense! 

Montana's current recall law was reduced to a sham by politicians who did not want to face the 
accountability of the recall process. CI-98 rights that wrong. It sets the recall bar extremely high to 
remove any possibility of misuse. Moreover, it entrusts Montanans with a sacred democratic 
responsibility: the ability to take action against the worst of judges, and bring them to a public vote. Vote 
for accountability and responsible public policy. VOTE YES FOR CI-98. 

Opponents' Rebuttal of Argument for Approval of CI-98 

Clearly, if passed, CI-98 can be used to intimidate and harass sitting judges. Just the presence of a law 
like CI-98 would be a threat to the judge's ability to decide issues impartially. 

A single dissatisfied person could file a petition to recall a judge, for any imaginary reason at all. No 
public official is given the power to correct the petition in any way. Did the judge act in the highest good 
faith? Tough luck! The petition drive goes on, no matter how good the judge really is. 

Then begins the scramble for signatures, sometimes by paid solicitors. CI-98 lowers the number of 
signatures needed. If enough are obtained, a special election on the recall must follow, or be a part of 
regular elections. It is the public who pays for these elections. It is the judge who must pay for his 
defense to the recall. 

People of good sense will see the dangers lurking in CI-98 and vote against it. The stability and quality 
of Montana's judiciary is truly at stake here. Our court system is working well, and does not need this 
kind of fixing. We respectfully ask you to vote against CI-98. 


Initiative No. 151 


This measure raises the state minimum wage to the greater of either 
$6.15 an hour or the federal minimum wage. This measure also adds an 
annual cost-of-living adjustment to the state minimum wage. Under 
existing law, the state minimum wage is equal to the federal minimum 
wage, which is $5.15 an hour with no cost-of-living adjustment. This 
measure does not change the $4.00 an hour minimum wage for a 
business whose annual gross sales are $1 10,000 or less. This measure 
would take effect January 1, 2007. 

This measure would have no significant impact on the revenues, 
expenditures, or the fiscal liability of the state. 

[] FOR raising the state minimum wage to the greater of either $6. 15 
an hour or the federal minimum wage, plus an annual cost-of- 
living adjustment. 

[] AGAINST raising the state minimum wage to the greater of either 
$6.15 an hour or the federal minimum wage, plus an annual cost- 
of-living adjustment. 

The PROPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by Tim 
Kennedy - Small Business Owner -Mom 's Famous Soup and Salad; Jacquie Helt 
President, Montana State AFL-CIO and Executive Officer UNITE HERE ! Local 
427; and Steve Bullock, Director, Raise Montana. 

The OPPONENT argument and rebutted for this measure were prepared by Riley 
Johnson, Brad Griffui, Merisa Saunders, and Webb Brown. 



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

"39-3-409. Adoption of minimum wage rates — exception. 

(1) The commission e r shall adopt rul e s to e stablish a minimum wage that, except as provided in 
subsection (5) (3), must be the sam e greater of either: 

(a) the minimum hourly wage rate as provided under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
U.S.C. 206(a)(1)), excluding the value of tips received by the employee and the special provisions for a 
training wage r; or 

(b) $6.15 an hour, excluding the value of tips received by the employee and the special provisions for a 
training wage. 

(2)(a) The minimum wage is subject to a cost-of-living adjustment, as provided in subsection (2)(b). 

(b) No later than September 30 of each year, an adjustment of the wage amount specified in subsection 
(1) of this section shall be made based upon the increase, if any, from August of the preceding year to 
August of the year in which the calculation is made in the consumer price index, U.S. city average, all 
urban consumers, for all items, as published by the bureau of labor statistics of the United States 
department of labor. 

(c) The wage amount established under this subsection (2): 

(i) must be rounded to the nearest five cents; and 

(ii) becomes effective as the new minimum wage, replacing the dollar figure specified in subsection (1), 
on January 1 of the following year. 

(3) (3} The minimum wage rate for a business whose annual gross sales are $1 10,000 or less is $4 an 

Section 2. Effective Date. [This act] is effective on January 1, 2007. 


Argument For 1-151 

People who work full-time for a living should not have to live in poverty. 

The current minimum wage in Montana is $5.15 an hour. 

(39-3-409 Montana Code Annotated) 

A person working full-time at the minimum wage in Montana will earn wages of $10,712 a year. 

($5. 15 an hour x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks - $10, 712) 

An annual wage of $10,712 is 31 % less than the federal poverty level for a family of three. 

(Congressional Research Service Memorandum - "Historical Relationship Between the Minimum Wage 

and Poverty, 1959 to 2005") 

Montana's minimum wage was last raised 10 years ago - in 1996. 

(Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Public Law 104-188, Signed into Law 8/20/1996) 

In 1996 the average price for a gallon of gas in Montana was $1.53 a gallon. 

(American Petroleum Institute - "Changes in the Major Components of Gasoline Prices, 1967-2004") 

At today's gas prices the average person spends $7,967 per year just to drive a car. 

(AAA Study - "Your Driving Costs 2006") 

A year of child-care in Montana costs an average of $5,710 for care of a pre-schooler. 

(National Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies - "2004-2005 Price of Child Care") 

Since 1996, 23 states have already raised the minimum wage for their workers. 
(Associated Press, July 17, 2006 - "Minimum Wage Push Focusing on State Level") 

Over 50% of all Americans live in states that have passed minimum wages higher than Montana's. 
(Economic Policy Institute -"Minimum Wage Issue Guide: FAQs") 

1-151 would raise the minimum wage in Montana by $1.00 an hour to $6.15 an hour. 

Give Montana workers a raise. 

It's fair. 

It's right. 

It's time. 

Vote for 1-151 

This Ballot Argument Submitted by: 

Tim Kennedy - Small Business Owner - Mom's Famous Soup and Salad 

Jacquie Kelt - President, Montana State AFL-CIO and Executive Officer, UNITE HERE ! Local 427 

Steve Bullock, Director, Raise Montana 


Argument Against 1-151 

• Read the fine print- 1-151 is an ANNUAL price increase. 

The dollar per hour increase is nothing but a Trojan Horse that hides the annual Consumer Price 
Index (CPI) increase. While focusing on the initial $1 per hour hike, proponents have slipped 
in an annual inflation factor that will cripple small businesses. And if double-digit inflation 
returns, that means double-digit labor increases - every year. 

• Big city prices for Montana's rural small businesses. 

The CPI is calculated using prices from 87 of America's biggest cities - not a single one of them 
in Montana! Nor are there any in three of our neighboring states. So, when the price of a latte 
increases in New York and Los Angeles, labor costs will go up in Eureka and Ekalaka. 1-151 
puts us at the mercy of out-of-state shopping trends. 

• 1-151 leaves small businesses vulnerable. 

The unpredictable nature of the CPI increase seizes economic control from small business. Since 
wages are the largest expense in most businesses, any price increase has a significant impact. It is 
essential that small business owners set wages and raises based on merit, education/training, 
productivity, and other factors, not a volatile government mandate. 

• 1-151 is mandated inflation. 

When faced with automatic pay hikes, business owners will be forced to increase prices 
every year. Simple economics require that costs, on a whole range of goods and services, will be 
passed on to consumers whenever possible. This will create a spiral of inflation, driving up 
costs. Montanans, especially retirees and those on fixed incomes, will pay a heavy price. 

• 1-151 takes a bad idea and makes it worse. 

Government-mandated wage increases are a bad idea in the first place. Everyone would like to 
see people earning more money. But nearly four out of five Montanans feel increasing 
business activity and providing better education and training are better ways to raise wage levels', 
rather than increasing the minimum wage. The last few years, we've seen how the market reacts 
to an improved economy around Montana - higher wage levels for workers. And according to 
the latest government statistics, Montana has only about 5,000 employees classified as making 
entry-level or minimum wage. Many of those are restaurant workers not counting tip income. 
Others are new to the workforce and quickly move on to higher wages after proving their value. 

• 1-151 is BAD for Montana. 

It's a sneaky way to force an annual price increase based on out-of-state, big city prices. It leaves 
small businesses vulnerable and mandates unlimited inflation on Montana consumers. And it 
compounds a bad method of increasing wages. 

Read the fine print - and vote NO on 1-151! 


Proponents' Rebuttal of Argument Against 1-151 

• Read the fine print — 1 - 151 i s on ANNUAL price increa s e . FALSE 

No fine print. . ..1-15 1 is one paragraph long and adds a fair and predictable standard based on 
' what businesses charges consumers. If the price of bread and milk increase, shouldn't the salaries 
of hard-working minimum wage earners increase, too? 

• Big city prices for Montana' s rural s mall bu s ine ss e s. FALSE 

The CPl is the fairest of yardsticks and is universally accepted ...in Montana. It is used to set 
governmental salaries, adjust taxes and retirement, even increase how much these lobbyists 
arguing against 1-151 can spend on influencing legislation before making it public! 

• — I 151 leaves s mall bu s ines s es vuLneroble . FALSE 

1-151 makes labor costs predictable. Like all of us, businesses need the ability to plan and 
prepare for change. The CPl takes politicians out of setting the minimum wage, replacing them 
with an established market calculation. ' 

• — 1 - 151 i s mandated inflation . FALSE 

Businesses raise prices. You think a hamburger today costs the same as in 1997, the last time 
the minimum wage was increased? Are the dues the Chamber of Commerce charges businesses 
the same today as they were then? Hardly. 

Prices increase naturally over time. So do salaries. The minimum wage earner hasn't had a 
pay increase in 10 years, yet must pay higher prices. That's not right. 

• 1 151 i s BAD for Montana . FALSE 

1-151 is good for Montana. 204- states have already increased their minimum wage, and their 
state's businesses have not been hurt. Neither will ours. 

Opponents' Rebuttal of Argument for Approvol of 1-151 

• Why did proponents choose not to focus on the most dangerous part of their proposal; the 
annual inflation factor called the Consumer Price Index? 

• 1-151 will impose big city price increases on Montana. The Consumer Price Index is 
calculated by taking prices from America's 87 largest cities. None of those cities are in Montana 
and none are in three of our surrounding states. 

US Bureau of Statistics 

• Wages in Montana will be determined by an out of state index. Do Montanans really want to 
be forced into spiraling labor and price hikes? 

• Economic experts, including Alan Greenspan, agree that an increase in the minimum wage 
results in fewer job opportunities for entry level workers — particularly the least-skilled. 

Sadly, these are the very individuals that minimum wage increases are supposed to help. 
"Product Market Evidence on the Employment Effects of the Minimum Wage," Federal Reserve 
Bank of Chicago, 2003 

• A large percentage of Montana's 5000 minimum wage earners are restaurant servers and 
arc cither teenagers living with their working parents, adults living alone, or a married 
couple — often with a spouse earning a higher income. The reason people agree to work as a 
restaurant server is because they can make considerably more than minimum wage with tips. The 
restaurant industry also provides flexible hours and advancement opportunities. 

• Read the fine print and Vote No on 1-151. 


Initiative No. 153 


This measure prohibits former state legislators, appointed officials, 
department directors, elected officials and their personal staff, from 
becoming licensed lobbyists within 24 months after departure from state 

[] FOR prohibiting certain former state officials and staff from 
becoming licensed lobbyists within 24 months following their 
departure from state government. 

[] AGAINST prohibiting certain former state officials and staff from 
becoming licensed lobbyists within 24 months following their 
departure from state government. 

The PROPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by 
Governor Brian Schweitzer, Reverend George Harper and State Representative 
Dave Wanzenreid. 

The OPPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by Jon 
Metropoulos, State Representative Ron Devlin and Linda Stoll. 




NEW SECTION . Section 1. Prohibition of lobbying by former government personnel. (1) 

An individual may not be licensed as a lobbyist and a principal may not directly authorize or permit 
lobbying by an individual, if during the 24 months prior to applying for a license that individual served as 
a state legislator, elected state official, department director, appointed state official, or a member of a 
certain personal staff, as defined by 2-18-101, MCA. 

(2) The prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply to an individual who seeks a license to serve 
as a lobbyist as part of the individual's responsibilities as an employee of state or local government. 

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Codification. Section 1 is intended to be codified as an integral 
part of Title 5, chapter 7, part 3, and the provisions of Title 5, chapter 7, apply to section 1. 

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Severability. If a part of this act 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 


Argument For 1-153 

I am proud to join Reverend George Harper and Representative Dave Wanzenried in writing this 
statement, not as Governor - but as a private citizen like Dave and George, concerned about the future of 
our state and the strength of our democracy in the face of increasing lobbying scandals around the nation. 

Ballot Initiative 153 will regulate the lobbying industry and keep our government clean, by setting out a 
two-year ban on lobbying by former government officials. If it passes, 1-153 will be among the strongest 
lobbying reform measures in America. 

The Problem 

Montana needs tougher laws to control the lobbying industry and its interaction with government 
officials, known as the "revolving door". It is currently legal for top government officials, including 
legislators and even the governor and his top staff, to leave office and immediately go to work as 
lobbyists representing the very industries that they once set policy for. This type of maneuver is at the 
center of the Washington, DC lobbying scandals and it occurs routinely in state government. It puts a 
"for-sale" sign on public service and allows well-funded advocacy groups to buy access at the expense of 
the ordinary citizen who should be government's first concern. And it tempts officials to focus on 
lucrative opportunities at the end of their tenure. To borrow a sports arlalogy, if an NFL referee officiates 
the Super Bowl, and on the next day gets hired by the winning team for a big salary, would you feel the 
game had been honestly officiated? We need to know that our public servants are working for us, not 
cutting deals for private industry with hopes of landing a job when they leave office. 

The Solution 

1-153 proposes a simple solution. It requires top state officials to wait two years before they may become 
licensed lobbyists. This waiting period applies to the people in government with the greatest power, 
including 1) legislators, 2) all of the elected officials of the executive branch, 3) the justices of the 
Supreme Court, 4) the top officials of the University system, and 5) the personal staff of elected officials. 
The waiting period does not apply to non-exempt state workers or local or county officials and does not 
prohibit representing oneself before the government. It also does not affect volunteer or other minimal 
lobbying. It only applies to paid, professional lobbying that requires a license. 

The purpose of government is to serve citizens and society, not professional lobbyists and their clients. 
We'll let our federal officials figure out how to clean up the mess in Washington. Meanwhile, we, the 
people, can lead the way in Montana by passing 1-153 to keep our state government clean. 

Brian Schweitzer 

Rev. George Harper 

Rep. Dave Wanzenried 


Argument Against 1-153 

If you are a member of a church, hunting and fishing organization, union, volunteer firefighter's 
organization, or women's group, if you own a small business or if you are retired, chances are your 
interests were represented in the last legislature by a lobbyist. Most of the people who participate in these 
and other groups with you are Montanans. Today you have the right to choose whomever you think is the 
most effective advocate to look out for your interests. Initiative 153 would take that right away . 

Scandals in Washington D.C. are the reason for this proposal. But Montana is not 'Washington D.C. Here 
in Montana, through the Commissioner of Political Practices, we know how much money is being spent 
on lobbying and by whom. We already require lobbyists to register, and to track and report expenditures 
and contacts with legislators. In addition, Montana's Constitution mandates open meetings, open public 
records and full public participation in the workings of our government. This includes the right to know 
who lobbyists are and who they work for, ensuring that communication with government officials is open 
for all to see. 

1-153 does not deal with any problem that exists in Montana. No corruption in the legislative and 
lobbying communities or in state government has'been shown. 1-153 would not better Montana's 
government, but it will infringe on our right to hire people of our choice to help us communicate with and 
persuade state government. 1-153 will ban a narrow group of individuals from serving as lobbyists, even 
though no need has been shown for this restriction on their rights and yours. The only ones who will 
benefit are long-entrenched lobbyists - because they will not be limited by 1-153 - and state government 
officials and bureaucrats - who will be able to influence the Legislature without competition from other 
well-informed individuals representing non-governmental interests. 

1-153 bars individuals who have served honorably from helping fellow Montanans communicate with the 
Legislature and other branches of government. The individuals affected by 1-153 still have something to 
offer the State of Montana and should not be treated as if their character is suspect. Barring them from 
this employment would harm not only them, but Montanans, just like you, who wish to use their expertise 
to communicate with state government. 

Finally, hiring such lobbyists benefits the legislative and governing process, results in better laws, and 
helps Montanans communicate effectively with their government. The truth of this is shown by the fact 
that the Governor had four registered lobbyists working directly for.him last session, two of whom were 
former legislators. Similarly, the State of Montana had more than 80 registered lobbyists, almost 20% of 
the lobbyists that worked with the 2005 Legislature. No other organization, corporation, business or 
citizen's group employed as many lobbyists as did the State. Clearly, state government understands the 
value of lobbyists, including those who are former legislators. 

It is unfair, and unwise, to allow government to have this advantage while taking it away from everyone 


Proponents' Rebuttal of Argument Against I-T53 

1) Initiative 153 does not in any way affect the right of a citizen to petition government or hire an 
advocate. Rather, it requires top government officials to "sit out" for two years before they may lobby for 
hire. As far as we know, there is no "right" to retain the lobbying services of a retired official whose chair 
in the capitol is still warm, nor is there a right to sell influence after leaving office. 

2) Our opponents seem to believe that lobbyists serve- the public at large. They do not. They represent 
special interests. Elected officials represent citizens. It's what they are pledged and paid to do. 

3) If an official wants to lobby for a good cause immediately upon retiring from service, 1-153 allows him 
to do so on a volunteer basis. If he wants to lobby for big bucks, he must wait two years. 

4) As lobbyists, our opponents know quite well that the lack of separation between government and the 
lobbying profession is a problem in Helena and Washington alike. It has been a factor in major policy 
failures, like energy deregulation, which was a success for energy lobbyists and energy companies but a 
disaster for citizens. 

5) Opponents' last paragraph is inaccurate. There is nothing wrong with somebody leaving the legislature 
to work in the executive branch, or leaving the private sector to work for the government. The problem 
arises when public servants quickly migrate into private for-profit lobbying and end up selling influence. 

Opponents' Rebuttgl of Argument for Approvol of 1-153 

1-153 would prohibit groups representing Montana citizens from hiring the lobbyists of their choice — 
former legislators and some state employees who could not lobby for two years after leaving office. 

But state or local government bureaucrats who lobby as a part of their job would not be affected. Former 
legislators could lobby for the state, but not for the AARP, the Montana Catholic Conference, the 
Montana Education Association-Montana Federation of Teachers, the National Rifle Association, 
Montana Cattle Women, Inc., the Montana Grain Growers Association, or any of the hundreds of 
organizations that hire lobbyists. 

If 1-153 is a good idea, it should apply to government bureaucracy as well as Montana citizens. 

But 1-153 is not a good idea. Today, you have the right to hire whomever you believe will best represent 
your interests to the Montana Legislature. If 1-153 passes, only state and local governments will have that 

Montana's Constitution guarantees open government, and that guarantee applies to lobbying activities. 
Entities that lobby must report their expenses, and those reports are open for everyone to see. 

1-153 may make for good political rhetoric, but it is bad government. 


Initiative No. 154 


Current law allows state and local governments to take or damage private 
property for public use, on payment of just compensation. First, this 
initiative requires governments to waive any new regulation that reduces 
property values, unless they compensate owners for the reduced value. This 
requirement does not apply to public health and safety. 

Second, this initiative prohibits governments from taking private property if 
they intend to transfer an interest in the taken property to another private 
party. This prohibition does not apply to private utility, water, transportation, 
and mining projects currently defined as public uses. 

This initiative requires significant state and local government expenditures to 
respond to additional property owner claims. Further expenditures to pay 
property owner claims will depend on future policy choices, and whether 
state and local governments decide to waive regulations instead of paying 

[] FOR requiring governments to waive regulations that reduce property 
values unless they compensate owners, and prohibiting takings 
intended to transfer property to private parties. 

[] AGAINST requiring governments to waive regulations that reduce 

property values unless they compensate owners, and prohibiting takings 
intended to transfer property to private parties. 

The PROPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by State 
Senator Joe Balyeat, CPA; and the Honorable Ken Miller, former State Senator. 

The OPPONENT argument and rebuttal for this measure were prepared by the 
Honorable Dorothy Bradley, former State Representative; the Honorable Charles 
Tooley, former Billings Mayor; County Commissioner Connie Eissinger; County 
Commissioner Doug Kaercher; and the Honorable Ron Erickson, former State 



WHEREAS, Article II, section 29, of the Constitution of the State of Montana declares in no 
uncertain terms that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just 
compensation to the full extent of the loss; and 

WHEREAS, Article II, section 3, provides, within its provisions, the inalienable rights of all 
Montana citizens the right to pursue life's basic necessities including defending liberties, acquiring, 
possessing and protecting property; and 

WHEREAS, Article II, section 17, provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or 
property without due process of law; and 

WHEREAS, despite these Constitutional protections, in government actions, the rights of private 
property owners are often ignored and the compensation provided is not just compensation, in that 
property owners do not appear to be compensated for property taken or damaged for public use to the full 
extent of the loss. 

NOW THEREFORE, as these rights clearly exist and with an intent to protect private property 
from the state to the full extent of a loss due to state action resulting in private property being taken or 


Section 1. Section 70-30-101, MCA, is amended to read: 

"70-30-101. Definitions Eminent domain defined . (1) Eminent domain is the right of the state 
to take private property for public use. This right may be exercised in the manner provided in this chapter. 

(2) (a) Damages to property occur when government regulations enacted after acquisition of an 
ownership interest in real property result in diminished value or economic loss to the private property 
subject to the government regulation. 

(b) Damages do not occur when government regulations, including court orders, are enacted for 
protection of public health and safety including fire and building codes, health and sanitary regulation, solid 
or hazardous waste regulations, housing of dangerous felons or sexual offenders, commonly and historically 
recognized nuisances under common law prohibiting or eradicating blight, obscenity, nude d ancing, junk or 
abandoned v 'hides or any property used in connection with any criminal activity. 

(3^ Just compensation is: 

(a) in the case of the taking of property the current fair market value for the property and 
improvement sought to be taken plus costs, interest and attorney fees as well as diminished value 
resulting from costs or losses incurred with respect to relocation or closing of a business; 

(b) if the property taken is an individual's principal residence just compensation is 125% of the 
fair market value, plus costs, interest, and attorney fees; or 


(c) in the case of damages to property that is damaged, the depreciation in the current fair market 
value, plus costs, interest and attorney fees as well as diminished value resulting from costs or losses 
incurred with respect to relocation or closing of a business. 

Section 2. 70-30-301, MCA, is amended to read: 

"70-30-301. Hearing -- judge to preside - determinations by condemnation commissioners, 

(1) The condemnation commissioners shall meet at the time and place stated in the order appointing them. 
The meeting time may not be more than 10 days after the order of appointment. The commissioners shall 
examine the knds property sought to be taken. At a time appointed by the judge and within the 10-day 
period, the commissioners shall hear the allegations and evidence of all persons interested in each parc e l 
e^4aRd the property sought to be taken . 

(2) The hearing must be attended by and presided over by the presiding judge, who shall make all 
necessary rulings upon procedure and the admissibility of evidence. 

(3) (a) At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge shall instruct the commissioners as to the law 
applicable to their deliberations and shall instruct them that their duty is to determine, based solely upon 
their examination of tends property, the evidence produced at the hearing or hearings, and the instructions 
of the court, the appropriate findings provided for in subsections (3)(b) through (3)(d). 

(b) The commissioners shall determine the current fair market value of the real property sought to be 
taken and all improveihents pertaining to the real property and of each separate estate and interest in the 
real property and improvements. If the real property consists of different parcels, the current fair market 
value of each parcel and each estate or interest in the real property must be separately assessed. 

(c) (i) If the property sought to be taken constitutes only a part of a larger parcel, the commissioners 
shall determine the depreciation in current fair market value that will accrue to the remaining parcel by 
reason of the condemnation and any improvements made to the affected property and the construction of 
the improvomonts in the manner propooed by th e condemnor. 

— (ii) The commission e rs shall also dotormin e how much the remaining parcel and each estate or inter e st 
in the r e maining parcel will be bonofit e d, if at all, by the construction of th e improvom e nts proposed by 
the condemnor. If th e benefit is equal to the amount assossed und e r subs e ction (3)(c)(i), the compensation 
to tho'condcmnoe is limited to the value of the portion taken. However, if the benefit is loss than th e 
amount assessed under subsection (3)(c)(i), the ben e fit to the condemnee must bo deduct e d from th e 
amount assossed under subsection (3)(c)(i) and the r e mainder is the only amount allow e d in addition to 
the curr e nt fair mark e t valu e. 

(d) If the property sought to be taken is for a railroad, the commissioners shall also determine the cost 
of good and sufficient fences along the line of the railroad and the cost of cattle guards where fences may 
cross the line of the railroad. 

(e) Through examination of the property, the commissioners shall determine the appropriate payment 
for damages to the property taken, as well as to any remaining parcel of property that may be adversely 
impacted by the project, to assist the court in making a final determination pursuant to 70-30-309. 

(4) When there are two or more estates or divided interests in property sought to be taken, the 
condemnor is entitled to have the amount of the award for the property first determined as between the 
condemnor and all condemnees claiming any interest in the property. In the same proceeding, the 
respective rights of each of the condemnees in and to the total, award must be determined by the 


commissioners, under supervision and instruction of the court, and the award must be apportioned 

Section 3. 70-30-304, MCA, is amended to read: 

"70-30-304. Appeal to district court from assessment of condemnation commissioners. { 1) 

Any party may appeal from any assessment made by the condemnation commissioners in the court in 
which the report of the commissioners is filed. The appeal must be taken within 30 days after the service 
upon the parties of the notice of the filing of the award. The appealing party shall serve notice of the 
appeal upon the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney and shall file the notice of appeal in the 
district court in which the action is pending. The appeal must be tried upon the same notice and in the 
same manner as other civil actions. Unless a jury is waived by the consent of all parties to the appeal, the 
appeal must be tried by a jury. The amount to which the condemnee may be entitled, by reason of the 
taking of the condemnee's property, must be reassessed as prescribed in this part for the assessment of 
that amount by the commissioners. 

(2) Upon any verdict or assessment by the commissioners becoming final, judgment must be 
entered declaring that upon payment of the amount of the verdict or assessment, together with the 
interests and costs allowed by law, if any, the condemnor has the right to construct and maintain the 
public use project and to take the property described in the verdict or assessment for the use and purposes 
for which the property has been taken. The rights granted in the verdict or assessment remain in the 
condemnor and the condemnor's heirs, successors, or assigns forever. 

(3) If the party appealing from the award of the commissioners does not succeed in changing to 
the appellant's advantage the amount finally awarded in the proceeding, the appellant may not recover the 
costs of the appeal , but all th e costs of th e appolleo in th e app e al must b e taxed against and recov e r e d 
from the app e llant . However, upon the trial of the appeal, the appellant may contest the right of any party 
to any of the property mentioned and set forth or involved in the appeal that was located after the 
preliminary survey of any highway or railroad, seeking to condemn a right-of-way pursuant to the 
provisions of this chapter if the condemnation proceedings are begun within 1 year after the preliminary 

Section 4. 70-30-322, MCA, is amended to read: 

"70-30-322. Option of original owner or successor in interest to purchase at sale price. (1) 

Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), the owner from whom the real property interest was 
originally acquired by eminent domain or otherwise or the owner's successor in interest, if there is a 
successor in interest, must be notified by the seller by certified mail and has a 30-day option from the date 
of a sale provided for in 70-30-321 to purchase the interest by offering an amount of money equal to the 
highest bid received for the interest at the sale. If mor e than on e person claims an equal entitl e m e nt, th e 
option may not b e e x e rcis e d. 

(2) In anv case where the seller is a government entity or the intended use by a purchaser, other 
than the optionholder, is different from the purpose for which the property was condemned, the 
optionholder may purchase the interest by offering an amount equal to the lesser of : 

(a) the highest bid received; or 


(b) the price paid to the original owner at the time of condemnation excluding costs and fees . 

(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), if bids are not received by the seller and the 
optionholder indicates in writing to the seller that the optionholder wishes to exercise the option, the seller 
shall have the real property interest appraised and sell the interest at that price to the optionholder. 

(4) If bids are not received and the seller is a government entity the optionholder may purchase 
the interest by offering an amount equal to the lesser of: 

(a) the appraised value; or 

(b) the price paid to the original owner at the time of condemnation excluding costs and fees. 

(5) When an interest, other than a fee simple interest, in property that has been acquired for a 
public purpose by right of eminent domain, or otherwise, is abandoned or when the purpose for which it 
was acquired is terminated, the property reverts to the original owner or the original owner's successor in 

(6) The rights of the optionholder with respect to subsections (2)(b) and (4)(b) of [this section] to 
purchasing the interest in the condemned property at the original price paid expire 15 years after the date 
of the condemnation. " 

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Limitation on public use. (1) Notwithstanding 70-30-102. MCA, 
government entities may not exercise the power of eminent domain with an intention to directly or 
indirectly transfer a possessory interest in the property taken to another private party, except where: 

(a) the purpose of the condemnation relates to improved or unimproved property that constitutes 
a danger to the safety and health of the community by reason of dilapidation, lack of ventilation, light and 
sanitar^ facilities, deleterious land use or any combination of these factors as determined by: 

(i) clear and convincing evidence; and 

(ii) in a manner that separately accounts for each parcel or property interest sought to be taken; 

(b) the property is necessary for transportation or utility facilities or transmission or pipeline 
systems or as enumerated as a public use in 70-30-102, MCA; or 

(c) the condemnation involves the conveyances of interests lesser than fee title to a privately 
owned business to provide incidental retail services in a public facility designed primarily to serve the 
patrons of the facility. 

(2) For the purposes of [this section], granting a mortgage or other security interests in the 
property to be taken for the purpose of financing the project for which the condemned property is to be 
used does not constitute an intention to directly or indirectly transfer a possessory interest in the property 
to another private party. 

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Just Compensation for damaged property. (1) The current owner 
of private real property is entitled to just compensation when property is damaged by the enactment or 
enforcement of government regulations. 

(2) If the right to use, divide, possess, sell or improve real property is directly impaired by a 
government regulation after the effective date of [this Act] the owner of the property shall be entitled to 
just compensation. Prior to filing a claim for just compensation under [this section], a property owner 
shall not be required to pursue or exhaust administrative remedies but must make a written demand to the 
government body that enacts or enforces the damaging regulation. Such demand may be submitted at any 
time from the enactment, up through a two year period from the initial enforcement of a damaging 
regulation, seeking just compensation, a permanent waiver from the regulation or a retraction of the 
regulation by the government body that enacted the regulation. 


(3) A government body receiving a written demand pursuant to [subsection (2)] must, within a 90 
day period following the date of receipt of the written demand and without requiring that the property 
owner participate in any administrative proceedings, take final action to permanently waive the regulation 
as applied to the affected parcel, retract the regulation or pay just compensation. If the government body 
does not satisfy the written demand by providing the amount demanded for just compensation or 
permanently removing the effect of the regulation within the 90 days from the filing of the demand, a 
prevailing owner shall have a cause of action for just compensation and shall be entitled to attorney fees, 
costs, and expenses incurred in pursuing the action. The government may, at any time prior to final 
proceedings on the disposition of the property owner's claim, take final action to permanently waive the 
regulation as applied to the affected parcel, retract the regulation or pay just compensation in satisfaction 
of the claim, but the government shall also pay actual attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred in 
pursuing the action. 

(4) An owner of real property affected by enforcement of a government regulation may apply to 
use or develop the affected property in a manner consistent with the permissible uses of the property in 
existence after the effective date of [this Act] or the date upon which the owner acquired record title in the 
property, whichever is later. If a permissible use under [this section] is not granted by the governing body 
within 120 days following the application for permit, the owner shall have a claim for just compensation 
and shall, if the owner prevails, be entitled to attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred in pursuing the 

(5) For purposes of [this section] the date upon which the owner acquires record title in the 
property, in the case of property held by lineal descendents of a property owner and acquired by such 
descendents through devise or gift shall be the date their predecessor in interest acquired title to the 
property. This subsection [subsection 5] applies to all interests acquired in the transfer of legal title and 
not just instances where the interest acquired is the same. 

(6) This section [section 6] shall not apply to government regulations enforced pursuant to 
[section 1, subsection (2)(b)] of [this Act]. 

NEW SECTION. Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 5 and 6] are intended to be 
codified as an integral part of Title 70, chapter 30, part 2, and the provisions of Title 70, chapter 30, part 2 
apply to [sections 5 and 6]. 

NEW SECTION. Section 8. Severability. If part of [this Act] is invalid all valid parts remain in 
effect. If 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. 

NEW SECTION. Section 9. Saving clause. [This Act] does not affect rights and duties that 
matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of [this 


NEW SECTION. Section 10. Applicability. [This Act] applies to government actions, 
condemnations, and the sale of previously condemned property, occurring after the effective date of [this 

NEW SECTION. Section 11. Effective date. [This Act] is effective upon approval by the 


Argument For 1-154 

1-154 is the Protect Our Homes initiative. It guards your home, business, and priv^ate property 
against abusive practices by over-ambitious politicians and special interests. 

• Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision ruled that government could use eminent domain 
to seize your property and re-transfer it to a mall developer. You could have a big box store where 
your living room once was. The only justification needed for bulldozing your home is government's 
desire to collect higher taxes from a commercial development. 

• The Court ruled this broader eminent domain interpretation would apply unless your state passes a 
law like 1-154, that prohibits this abuse. 

• Since Kelo, eminent domain abuse has skyrocketed - nationwide, nearly 6000 properties either 
threatened or taken - working class homes, businesses, elderly widows' houses, even churches. No one 
is safe. For many families, the American Dream of home ownership is being destroyed by an unholy 
alliance of ambitious politicians and commercial interests. 

• 1-154 says "Not in Montana." It preserves the historical purpose of eminent domain - your 
property could only be taken for true public purposes - highways, utilities, etc. 

• Keh's eminent domain bulldozer is government theft - plain and simple. That's why laws similar to I- 
154's eminent domain restriction are already enacted or currently progressing in 35 states. 

• 1-154 protects your property from excessive and abusive regulations that reduce the value of your 
land and restrict your ability to use it as you would like. Under 1-154, you'd have an avenue of legal 
relief by filing protest within two years. If you're successful, regulators would have three choices: 

A) Exempt you from the unnecessary regulation, or 

B) Repeal the unnecessary regulation entirely, or 

C) Compensate you for your property value loss. 
Only if option C is chosen, would government costs result. 

• 1-154 is balanced. It only targets abusive property regulations - it doesn't apply to any already 
existing zoning or regulation, new health and safety regulations, or privately imposed subdivision 
covenants. 1-154 includes numerous reasonable exemptions - allowing new regulations for sanitation, 
fire and building codes, solid waste, hazardous waste, common nuisances, blight, obscenity, junk 
vehicles, dangerous felons, sexual offenders, and property used in connection with criminal activity. 

• The uninformed try telling us that eminent domain abuses "can't happen in Montana." They rely on a 
1995 Montana court decision that is no longer relevant, now that federal law has changed under 

Kelo. The only way to safeguard our homes from the tax-seeking Bulldozer is to pass 1-154. 

1-154 protects our freedom by limiting the power of government over our property, establishing a 
fair playing field for appealing regulatory abuses, and ensuring that no commercial interest can use 
eminent domain to rob us of our property for personal gain. If you believe in limiting government power, 
if you believe in, fundamental private property rights, if you believe in reasonable compensation when 
government reduces your property value, if you want to protect YOUR home - 

^ Vote YES on 1-154. 


Argument Against 1-154 

1-154 means higher taxes for Montana families and big breaks for special interests. 

Out-of-state special interests are pushing a classic bait-and-switch on Montana voters. They want 
you to believe 1-154 is about stopping abuses of eminent domain. But in fact, the fine print creates 
massive new loopholes for irresponsible development — at huge cost for taxpayers. 

1-154 is unfair. 1-154 allows irresponsible developers and special interests to dodge basic rules 
that benefit everyone. Montana communities put these laws on the books to protect our kids, the value of 
our homes, clean water, water rights, and neighborhoods. These local, democratic laws will be tossed out 
unless we pay special interests to follow them. 

Here's how 1-154 would work; 1-154 creates a radical, expensive new "pay or waive" system. 
Imagine a developer wants to put a gravel pit next to your home or an adult bookstore near a daycare. 
Under 1-154, you and your neighbors cannot regulate these activities — unless you pay the developer. In 
other words, taxpayers must pay special interests to follow the rules. Montana taxpayers would have to 
pay — even if a proposed development would damage our own property values. 

That's backwards. That's not the Montana way. 

Who pays? Your pocketbook and your community. Local taxpayers will be forced to pay 
millions to developers just to enforce existing laws. As a result, cities and counties will be forced to cut 
services like fire and police protection or raise your taxes to keep your community safe. The governor's 
budget director said: 'The impact ... is potentially tens of millions of dollars for claims and additional 
costs." He added that families and business owners who pay local property taxes would bear the brunt. 
These dollars would go to special interests — with zero benefits for the average Montana family. The 
only other option would be to waive the rules that protect the things that belong to all of us — our natural 
beauty, clean water and friendly communities. 

1-154 will trigger endless lawsuits. The initiative is so poorly written, it leaves many important 
questions unanswered. This will lead to endless and expensive lawsuits. Who decides where and when it 
applies? How much will each case cost which taxpayers? What money will be left for schools and roads? 

1-154 destroys the existing balance. In Montana, locally elected officials work hard to balance 
new development with the rights of existing neighbors and property owners. 1-154 throws that balance 
into chaos. It puts your property rights — and your community — at risk. 

All Montanans cherish property rights. However, the right to develop one's property does not 
include the right to damage the property — or the quality of life — on the other side of the fence. 
Montana's current system protects property rights on both sides of the fence. 1-154 is a radical, 
expensive, unnecessary measure that will cause major harm to families, communities, and 

Say NO to the TAXPAYER TRAP. Vote NO on 1-154. 


Proponents' Rebuttal of Argument Against 1-154 

1-154 - written by Montanans, for Montanans. 
1-154 won't cause any of opponents' dire predictions because: 

*^ It's not retroactive. ALL existing land-use regulations and zoning remain effective. Opponents' 

claim that "taxpayers must pay developers . . .to enforce existing laws" and "laws will be tossed out" is 
100% false. 

v^ It exempts all new regulations for health/safety. Claiming 1-154 hampers "protecting our kids, 

clean water, and water rights. . ." is pUre hooey. 

■y It exempts all private subdivision covenants. Neighborhoods will be destroyed? Baloney, 

v^ It keeps all existing ordinances, and permits new regulations for sanitation, fire/building 

codes, solid/hazardous waste, common nuisances, blight, obscenity and other adult businesses, junk 
vehicles, criminals, etc. Claiming we couldn't regulate adult bookstores, gravel pits, and developers is 

• 1-154 doesn't require spending ANY taxpayer dollars. If a new excessive regulation doesn't fit 

one of I-154's many exceptions, the property owner could protest within 2 years. But even if successful, it 
doesn't mean he'll receive money. Officials can just exempt his property from new regulations. 1-154 will 
cost taxpayers millions? Hogwash. 

v' 1-154 changes nothing respecting property rights disputes. Courts will continue deciding 

cases as always. 

^ Claiming I-154's eminent domain protection is "bait-and-switch" is utterly false. 1-154 is 

necessary because the federal Kelo decision trumped Montana's 1995 case. Current Montana law 
specifies - condemnation is allowable for "all public uses authorized by the U.S. government. " 
■^ Opponents' claim that 1-154 creates "massive loopholes for developers" is malarkey. 1-154 

restricts developers from using tax-hungry governments to confiscate your property. 

1-154 protects your home - Vote YES. 

Opponents' Rebuttgl of Argument for Approvgl of 1-154 

1-154 is bait-and-switch. Reforming "eminent domain" is only bait. Beware of the "switch." 

Initiative-154 is a tax trap. Supporters barely mention costs to taxpayers. No wonder, because 
costs are staggering. A similar law recently took effect in Oregon. Already, special interests there are 
demanding $4 billion from taxpayers, according to the Salem Statesman Journal. 

1-154 works by creating a sweeping, new "pay-or-waive" system that guts everyday rules we use 
to protect our homes, clean water, and property. That system forces taxpayers to pay irresponsible 
developers yws/ to follow the law like everyone else. If a developer doesn't like a rule, he simply demands 
a payoff for alleged losses. 1-154 hands a blank check to certain developers, which means more taxes for 
average Montanans. 

Imagine the kind of irresponsible development that 1-154 could unleash in your neighborhood: 
An adult bookstore? A high-density development? A motorcycle racetrack? A gravel pit? The choice 
would be to accept the degradation of your neighborhood and property, or pay the developer not to act. I- 
154 actually harms your property rights. 

Again, 1-154 is NOT about eminent domain. Kelo isn't possible in Montana. Even the 
National Association of Realtors, which defends property rights, reports Montana "explicitly prohibited 
the use of eminent domain to acquire property for economic development" because of our current laws 
and legal cases. 

The loopholes are enormous. No wonder out-of-state developers are pushing 1-154 on Montana 
— they will benefit at our expense. Vote NO on the tax trap. Vote NO on 1-154. 


Political Parties of Montana 

These statements have been prepared by the political parties. Theyjdo not necessarily represent 
the views of the Secretary of State or the State of Montana, but are included to provide 
information to the voters on the political parties that have qualified for the ballot. 

Constitution Party 

The Constitution Party of Montana is a political party that believes the purpose of government is 
to protect the individual citizen's right to life, liberty and property. It is not the role of 
government (Federal or State) to burden the people with thousands of unjust and unneeded lawsr 
or to act as "nursemaid" by instituting countless social programs. Citizens must have the 
FREEDOM to succeed (or to fail) without government's interference. In order to accomplish 
this, we must: 

♦ Restore the United States to "One Nation Under God." 

♦ Restore Limited Constitutional Government. 

♦ Protect the Inalienable Right to Life for All, including the Unborn, Aged and Infirm. 

♦ Protect the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

♦ Rein in an Out-of-Control Judiciary. 

♦ Protect God-ordained Marriage and Family. 

♦ Restore National Sovereignty. 

♦ Stop All Unconstitutional Spending - returning Hard-earned Tax Dollars to the People. 

♦ Abolish the Federal Reserve and Restore Constitutional Money. 

♦ Protect our Borders. 

♦ Maintain a Strong National Defense. 

♦ End Federal Control of Education and Welfare. 

♦ Protect Private Property. 

♦ Rescind NAFTA and GATT. 

We invite all Montanans whq love liberty and justice to join with us in our pursuit of restoring 
our civil government to our country's founding principles. 

Jonathan D. Martin, State Chairman 

Constitution Party of Montana 

2212 2nd Ave. S., Great Falls. MT 59405 

Phone: (406)727-5924 

Website: www.cpomt.webhop.org 

E-mail: montanamartins@vahoo.com 


Democratic Party 

Montana Democrats are the common sense Party of working families, seniors, farmers, ranchers 
and children across Montana. In 2005, we kept our promise to create good paying jobs, support 
public school classrooms, promote alternative energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 
and make healthcare more affordable for families. 

Together we worked to move Montana forward by: 

• Improving access to public lands for hunting, fishing and recreation. 

• Helping thousands of small businesses provide health coverage for their employees. 

• Creating scholarships so that more students can afford to go to college in Montana. 

• Providing historic funding increases for Montana classrooms. 

• Providing health care to thousands of Montana children. 

We did all of this without raising taxes. In fact, we eliminated the business equipment tax for 
more than 13,000 small businesses to help them be more productive and profitable. 

In 2007 we will secure a $400 property tax rebate for every resident Montana homeowner, to help 
families cope with high utility and gas prices. We will suspend the Water Tax and rebate the 
funds to all Montanans who paid between $20 - $400. Democrats will give all the money to 
hardworking Montanans, not to big out-of-state corporations. 


Montana Democratic Party 

PO Box 802 303 N Ewing, MT 

Helena, MT 5960 1 Helena, MT 59624 

Phone 406.442.9520 

Fax 406.442.9534 

Email: info@mtdemocrats.net 

Website: www.MontanaDemocrats.org 


Libertarian Party 

The Montana Libertarian Party is the real choice for less government, lower taxes, and more 
freedom. The Libertarian Party believes in economic and personal freedom. People should be free 
to make their own choices, provided they don't infringe on the equal right of others to do the 
same. Government's only role should be to protect people's right to make their own choices in 
life, so they can reap the rewards of their successes and bear personal responsibility for their own 

The Montana Libertarian Party is dedicated to: 

* Reducing tax burdens and government spending, so that people can keep more of their money. 

* Improving education by empowering parents not bureaucrats, to make important decisions for 
our children. 

* Protecting the right to keep and bear arms, and the elimination of Victim Disarmament laws. 

* Safer neighborhoods by punishing violent criminals rather than wasting resources prosecuting 
victimless crimes. 

* A cleaner environment through PRIVATE property rights, legal accountability, and personal 

If you're tired of the promises of the majority, we invite you to join us as we fight for everyone's 
liberty on every issue, all the time. 

Montana Libertarian Party 
P.O. Box 4803 
Missoula, MT 59806 
www.lp.org www.mtlp.org 


Republican Party 

The philosophy of the Montana Republican Party is grounded in personal responsibility and 
individual initiative. We believe that private citizens, not government, hold the solutions for most 
of the problems facing our state. Therefore we stand for smaller government, more local control, 
and greater personal freedom. We are the party of traditional values and we will continue to fight 
to keep our families strong. 

Our major initiatives in 2007 will include an 8% property tax reduction for homeowners and 
small business, the repeal of the water adjudication tax, a 5% reduction in college tuition, and an 
income tax deduction for individuals who purchase their own health insurance. We also pledge to 
provide a $250 tax credit to teachers who provide their own classroom supplies, and to pass 
stronger sex predator legislation to keep our children safe. 

Republican lawmakers have a proven track record of fiscal responsibility on the state and federal 
level both in controlling government spending and providing tax relief The tax relief that we 
provided over the last decade has spurred Montana's economy and is directly responsible for the 
strong economic growth we're experiencing today. Voting for Republican candidates will ensure 
that type of growth into the future. 

Montana Republican Party 
PO Box 935 
Helena, MT 59624 
(406) 442-6469 


Voting in IVIontana Elections 

Registering to vote is easy. You can fill out a card at your county elections office, generally the 
county courthouse. Cards are also available online at www.sos.mt.gov and in most phone books, 
as well as at your driver's license bureau. 


Find the location of your polling place on your voter registration confirmation card. Or, you can 
call your county election administrator for the location. See the list on page 50. 

When you enter your polling place, an election judge will greet you, ask your name, and confirm that 
you are registered to vote in that precinct. He or she will also ask you to show one form of ID. This 
can be any current photo ID that shows your name (for example, a driver's license, school ID, state ID, 
or tribal ID) or a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, voter confirmation notice, government 
check or other government document that shows your name and current address. 

If you forget your ID, you have many options. You can return to the polls when you have it, fill out a 
polling place elector ID form, or vote a provisional ballot, which will be counted if your identity and 
eligibility to vote can be verified. 


In order to vote absentee, you will need to fill out an application, available from your county 
election administrator or on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.mt.gov. You may apply 
for an absentee ballot up until noon on the day before the election. When you receive your 
absentee ballot, fill in all of your choices. Then, place the ballot in the secrecy envelope that is 
provided for your use, follow all enclosed directions, and send the ballot to your county election 


Be sure to follow the voting instructions. Always mark your vote for only one issue or candidate, 
except where the instructions tell you that you can vote for more than one. 

If you damage your ballot, make a mistake on it, or overvote, do not throw away your ballot, try 
to erase it, or scratch out a mistake -just ask an election judge for a new one. You may skip any 
offices without invalidating your ballot. 


You have the option to vote a provisional ballot if your identity or eligibility to vote is questioned. If 
you are a provisional voter, an election judge will give you a ballot with a special provisional 
envelope for you to fill out. 


What's New for the 2006 Election Season 


Starting in 2006, you have the right to request that an absentee ballot be mailed to you for each 
election in which you are eligible to vote a ballot. You can specify on your absentee ballot 
application or on your absentee ballot materials that you would like absentee ballots mailed to 
you in future elections. 

If you choose to be placed on the permanent absentee list, you have the responsibility to complete 
and return an address confirmation form sent out before each election. If you do not complete 
and return this form to your county election administrator, you will not receive absentee ballots 
unless you later request them. 


Starting with the 2006 elections, all voters have the option to use voting equipment specially 
designed for those with visual or mobility impairments. These voting systems, known as 
AutoMARKs, were purchased by the Secretary of State's office using federal funding. 

A person using the AutoMARK may make his or her choices by pressing on the touch screen or 
by using a keypad that has raised buttons in the shape of arrows for ease of use, and which also 
includes markings for people who are able to read Braille. Voters may also ask an election judge 
for headphones, which voters can use to hear a computer voice that will read the ballot to them. 
The AutoMARK will allow individuals to confirm their choices, will mark a ballot based on those 
choices, and lastly, will print a regular paper ballot for deposit in the ballot box. 

No one is required to vote on the AutoMARK systems, and they will not tabulate any individual's 


Beginning with elections after July 1, 2006, individuals have the right to register and vote up to 
and including on Election Day at the county election office, if they miss the deadline to register to 
vote 30 days or more before the election. 

An elector who chooses this option must still have been a resident of Montana for at least 30 days 
before the election. A statewide voter database will ensure that individuals do not vote in 
multiple counties. 


How to Contact Your County Election Office 

Area Code 406 



Big Horn 










Deer Lodge 







Golden Valley 




Judith Basin 


Lewis & Clark 













Powder River 









Silver Bow 


Sweet Grass 









Rosalee Richardson 
Cyndy R Maxwell 
Sandra L Boardman 
Judy R Gillespie 
Jo-Ann Staudinger 
Pamela Castleberry 
Peggy Carrico 
JoAnn L Johnson 
Marie Wehri 
Kristy Jones 
Maurine Lenhardt 
Marie Hatcher 
Brenda J Wood 
Kathy Reharty 
Paula Robinson 
Shelley Vance 
Janet Sherer 
Sylvia Berkram 
Mary Lu Ringler 
Blanche Pederson 
Diane E Mellem 
Bonnie Ramey 
Amanda H Kelly 
Kathie Newgard 
Paulette DeHart 
Maureen Cicon 
Coral M Cummings 
Peggy Kaatz Slemler 
Maridel L Kassner 
Cameron Lowe 
Katherine Jasper 
Vickie Zeier 
Jane E Mang 
Denise Nelson 
Mary L Brindley 
Laurel N Hines 
Janice Hoppes 
Karen D Amende 
Karla M Rydecn 
Lisa Kimmet 
Nedfa P Taylor 
Penni D Lewis 
Cheryl A Hansen 
Geraldine Custer 
Pat Ingraham 
Mary Lynch 
Mary McMahon 
Pauline M Mishler 
Sherry Bjorndal 
Paula J Jaconetly 
Mary Ann Harwood 
Ruth L Baker 
Lynne Nyquist 
Mary E Miller 
Patricia Zinda 
Duanc Winslow 


2 S Pacific Si No 3. Dillon 59725 

PO Box 908, Hardin 59034 

PO Box 278. Chinook 59523 

5 1 5 Broadway St, Tow nsend 59644 

PO Box 887. Red Lodge 59068 

Box 315, Ekalaka 59324 

Box 2305. Great Falls 59403 

Box 459, Fort Benton 59442 

1010 Main, Miles City 59301 

Box 247, Scobey 59263 

207 West Bell, Glendive 59330 

800 Main, Anaconda 5971 1 

Box 846. Baker 59313 

712 W Main, Lewistown 59457 

800 S Main. Kalispell 59901 

31 1 W Main Rm 103, Bozeman 59715 

Box 7, Jordan 59337 

5 12 E Main, Cut Bank 59427 

PO Box 10. Ryegate 59074 

Box 925. Philipsburg 59858 

Courthouse. Havre 59501 

Box H. Boulder 59632 

Box 427. Stanford 59479 

106 4th Ave E, Poison 59860 

3 16 N Park Ave Rm 168, Helena 59623 

Box 459, Chester 59522 

512 California, Libby 59923 

Box 366. Virginia City 59755 

Box 199, Circle 59215 

Box 309, White Sulphur Sprgs 59645 

Box 550. Superior 59872 

200 W Broadway. Missoula 59802 
506 Main, Roundup 59072 

414 E Callender St. Livingston 59047 

Box 226. Winnett 59087 

Box 360. Malta 59538 

20 4th Ave SW, Conrad 59425 

Box 270. Broadus 59317 

409 Missouri, Deer Lodge 59722 

Box 125, Terry 59349 

215 S 4ih St Ste C, Hamilton 59840 

201 W Main. Sidney 59270 

400 2nd Ave S. Wolf Point 59201 

Box 47. Forsyth 59327 

Box 519. Thompson Falls 59873 

100 W Laurel Ave. Plentywood 59254 

K55 W Granite Rm 208. Butte 59701 

Box 149. Columbus .^90 1 9 

Box 888. Big Timber 59011 

Box610. Choteau 59422 

226 IslStS. Shelby 59474 

Box 392. Hysham 59038 

501 Court Sq Box 2. Glasgow 59230 

Box 1903, Harlowton 59036 

PO Box 199, Wibaux 59353 

Box 35002, Billings 59107 















treas@co.broadw ater.ml.us 






cccnrc @ midrivers.com 









m. wehri @co.custer.ml.us 



danclkrec @ yahoo.com 
























glaciercounty @ yahoo.com 



ringlerml @ yahoo.com 




265-5481 x221 


















293-7781 x200 





pkaalz @ madison.mt.gov 


























27 1 -4070 




kamende @ prco.mt.gov 

846-3680 x223 
















346-755 1 

c lerkandrecorder@rangew eb. net 















sgclerk 1 @cablemt.net 























Ballot Measure Worksheet 

Mark your choices on this norlisheet and then take it with you on Election Day as a reminder. 

Constitutional Amendment 43 

[] FOR changing tlie name of the state auditor to the insurance commissioner. 

[] AGAINST changing the name of the state auditor to the insurance commissioner. 

Constitutional Initiative 97 

[] FOR Hmiting the increase in appropriations to the combined growth rate of population and 

inflation, or the largest spending limit for any previous biennium. 
[] against limiting the increase in appropriations to the combined growth rate of population and 

inflation, or the largest spending limit for any previous biennium. 

Constitutional Initiative 98 

[] FOR amending the Montana Constitution to provide for recall by petition of state court justices or 

judges for any reason. 
[] AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution to provide for recall by petition of state court 

justices or judges for any reason. 

Initiative 151 

[] for raising the state minimum wage to the greater of either $6. 1 5 an hour or the federal 

minimum wage, plus an annual cost-of-living adjustment. 
[] AGAINST raising the state minimum wage to the greater of either $6. 1 5 an hour or the federal 

minimum wage, plus an annual cost-of-living adjustment. 

Initiative 153 

[] for prohibiting certain former state officials and staff trom becoming licensed lobbyists within 

24 months following their departure from state government. 
[] AGAINST prohibiting certain former state officials and staff from becoming licensed lobbyists 

within 24 months following their departure from state government. 

Initiative 154 

[] for requiring governments to waive regulations that reduce property values unless they 

compensate owners, and prohibiting takings intended to transfer property to private parties. 

[] against requiring governments to waive regulations that reduce property values unless they 

compensate owners, and prohibiting takings intended to transfer property to private parties. 

Key Election Reminders 

♦ Remember, if you damage your ballot, make a mistake on it, or over\ote, do 
not throw away your ballot, try to erase it, or scratch out a mistake -just ask an 
election judge for a new one. 

♦ November 7 is Election Day. The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. in most 
localities. Precincts of 200 or fewer voters may open their polling places at 
noon. Check your local media or county election office (see page 50 of this 
pamphlet) for the polling times and places in your area. 

Don't forget to bring your ID w hen you vote! 

480,000 copies of this public document were pulylished by the Eagle Web Press, at 
an estimated cost of 17.7 cents per copy, for a total cost of $84,960.00 for printing. 
Distribution costs were paid for by county governments. This document printed on 
recycled paper. 

County Election Administrator 
County Courthouse