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

Full text of "Montana voter's guide to the ... election"

MONTANA 
STATE 




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



324.786 

S2ir« 

199Z 



Montana 

Voter's Guide to the 

1992 General Election 



Inside 



Page 2 



Message from the Secretary of 
State 



Page 3 

Explanation of the Voter 
Information Pamphlet 



Page 4 



Summary of ballot measures 



Page 20 

Complete text of ballot 
measures 



Back Cover 

What to do at the polls 
Registering to vote 



V0T1N(& I'M TBt ELECTIOM IM 

m-, 

Lt) ViHflT mm nMXMf\ ?tO,VJKir£,^ND 

o 
STATE DflCUMgNTS MLLgCTIC 

NOV 3 01992 



HELENA. M0I«W9*A3?^^A 






I L.:i.,..;\- 




?5??|^fP^ 



LET ^5 JOLM TOGETrttP^ Ay\iO VOiej, 



Drawing by Ramie Holmquist 
of F.E. Miley School in Big Sandy. 



Published by Secretary of State Mike Cooney 

State Capitol - Helena, Montana 59620 



Montana Slate Ubtary 

IHI1I! I|!t|1li!|llll|l 



3 0864 1004 3863 2 



SECRETARY OF STATE 

STATE OF MONTANA 



Mike Cooney 
Secretary of State 

Dear Montana Voter: 




Montana State Capitol 
Helena, MT 59620 



One of the most important and valuable aspects of our state's Constitution is the power that the 
people have to change or amend it. This November 3rd you and the rest of the voters of Montana 
will be deciding on five different amendments to the Constitution. 

The purpose of this pamphlet is to allow you to examine the full text of these measures and learn 
the arguments of the proponents and opponents before you go to the polls. Each amendment that 
is approved by a majority of the voters on November 3rd will become part of Montana's 
Constitution, so study this information carefully. 

Remember that October 5th is the deadline for registering to vote for the November 3rd 
general election. 

The sketch on the cover was drawn by Ramie Holmquist of F.E. Miley School in Big Sandy. 
Ramie won a contest among grade school students throughout the state. 

These drawings are important for two reasons. They point out that people of all ages can 
participate in the election process. They also should serve as a reminder that the results of this 
election will effect not only this generation of voters but many future generations of Montanans as 
well. 

This pamphlet has been put together to ensure that the issues and arguments are treated equally. 
For this reason, each ballot measure begins on a new page. 

An audio version of this pamphlet in cassette form is available through your county library as well. 

I also have a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) set up in my office to answer election 
questions for voters with hearing impairments. The phone number for the TDD is 444-4732. 

This is an important election for many reasons, so please remember to vote. 

Sulcerely, 




Reception: (406)444-2034 - Business Services Bureau: 444-3665 - Elections Bureau: 444-4732 
Administrative Rules Bureau: 444-2055 - Records Management Bureau (1320 Bozeman Avenue): 444-2716 

Fax: 444-3976 



What is the Voter Information Pamphlet? 

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

What's in the VIP 

The VIP shows how each ballot measure will be appearing on the ballot. This includes: 

1 . the ballot number, 

2. the method of placement on the ballot, 

3. the title of the measure, 

4. the attorney general's explanatory statement, if applicable, 

5. the fiscal statement, if applicable, and 

6. the statements of implication (the FOR and AGAINST statements). 

The VIP also contains arguments advocating adoption and rejection of each ballot measure written by 
appointed committees. Finally, the VIP contains the full text of the measure so that you can read and 
decide for yourself how you will vote on these questions on November 3, 1992. 

What's the difference between a referendum and an initiative 

A referendum is a measure that the Legislature has placed on the ballot for a vote of the people. An 
initiative is a measure that qualified for the ballot by having enough voters sign a petition requesting that it 
be placed before the people for a vote. 

This year there are three constitutional amendments referred by the Legislature. They have been assigned 
the ballot numbers C-22, C-23, and C-24. 

Two constitutional amendments qualified for the ballot through the initiative process. To distinguish these 
measures from the constitutional amendments referred by the Legislature, they are given the prefix CI for 
Constitutional Initiative. This year the voters will be deciding on CI-63 and CI-64. When reading the VIP, 
you will often see these abbreviations used. 

Who writes the information that goes into the VIP 

Attorney General - The Attorney General writes an explanatory statement for each measure. This statement, 
not to exceed 100 words, is a true and impartial explanation of the purpose of the measure in easy to 
understand language. The fiscal note, also prepared by the Attorney General, is a statement of the impact 
the measure would have on the state's revenues, expenditures, or fiscal liability. If the for and against 
statements are not provided by the Legislature, then the Attorney General will write these as well. 

Pro and Con arguments - The members of the committees that write the arguments and rebuttals for each 
measure are appointed in a procedure set out by state law. For referenda, the Speaker of the House and 
President of the Senate will each appoint one pro and con committee member. These two appointees will 
then choose a third. 

For initiatives, the three-member pro committee is appointed by the sponsor of the petition. The Governor, 
Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate each appoint one member to the con 
committee, and those four members choose a fifth member. 

Arguments are limited to 500-words and rebuttals are limited to 250-words. 



Constitutional Amendment 22 

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT 

Constitutional Amendment 22 

An amendment to the Constitution referred by the Legislature 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO 
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 8, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO GENERALLY REVISE THE LAW 
RELATING TO THE SELECTION OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; 
TO REQUIRE THAT ELECTION, CONFIRMATION, AND RETENTION OF JUSTICES OR JUDGES 
MUST BE AS PROVIDED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to clarify 
procedures for election of supreme court justices and district court judges and for the filling of vacancies. 
Judges appointed to fill a vacancy would be confirmed by the senate and serve until the expiration of the term 
of the judge whose position is being filled. No appointee could serve past the term of his or her predecessor 
without standing for election. Incumbent judges unopposed for re-election would be placed on the ballot to 
allow voters to approve or reject them for another term. 

FISCAL NOTE: This measure will have no material fiscal impact. 

D FOR amending the constitution to mandate the election of justices and judges as provided by law. 

D AGAINST amending the constitution to mandate the election of justices and judges as provided by law. 



Argument FOR Constitutional Amendment 22 



Montanan's expect and deserve to have their judges 
elected on a timely basis. A recent Montana Supreme 
Court interpretation of Montana Constitution permits 
newly appointed judges to carry past the term of their 
predecessor without facing an election. Without 
changing the constitution, it would be possible to have 
judges avoid facing election if a succession of 
resignations and appointments occurred. This 
proposed amendment to the constitution prevents this 
from happening. 

It is clear that the present process for appointment of 

district and supreme court justice positions flies in the 
face of the intent of the framers of the Montana 
Constitution. The current practice has thwarted the 
electoral process by allowing judges and justices to 
resign in the off-year which permits their appointed 
successors to serve a full three years before they have 



to stand for election. 

In part, this loophole was created in 1987, when the 
Attorney General issued an opinion holding that 
appointed judges don't have to run for election until 
after confirmation by the Montana Senate which was 
never the intention of the framers of our 
Constitution. 

The 1972 constitutional language was written under 
the assumption that Montana would have annual 
legislative sessions. With annual sessions a yearly 
confirmation process could have been conducted. 
When annual sessions were abolished in 1974, a 
legal situation was created allowing judges and 
justices the luxury of avoiding election for three 
years before standing for election. 



Argument FOR Constitutional Amendment 22 (continued) 



The Montana Constitution is clear in providing for the 
electoral selection of judges. 28% of our current 
Supreme Court Justices and 41% of our current 
District Court Judges were first appointed. This 
amendment seeks to bolster the constitution in 
guaranteeing the right of all Montanans to vote and 
participate in the electoral system while maintaining 
the balance of powers between the three branches of 
government by eliminating the potential for improper 
use of the appointment process. 



If you subscribe to the notion that the Montana voter 
has a right to have executive judicial appointments 
face elections in a timely fashion, vote FOR 
Constitutional Amendment 22. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Chet Blaylock, 
Representative Bill Strizich, and Representative 
Vicki Cocchiarella. 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Amendment 22 



The proposed amendment creates more problems and 
uncertainties than it cures. Adoption of this 
Constitutional wording will result in additional 
litigation to resolve ambiguities it creates. The 
proposal unconditionally requires judges to be elected 
prior to assuming the duties of the office. This 
precludes temporary appointments to ease court 
caseloads, could require repetitive nominations, and 
minimizes the need but retains the requirement for 
expensive Senate confirmation hearings. 

The current Constitution requires judges to face 
election when the term of office expires or after 
Senate confirmation of an appointee. However, 
proposed Section 8(1) requires that Supreme Court 
justices and district court judges shall be elected. It 
makes no provision for the appointment of judges to 
fill vacancies before an election. Although the 
intention is to allow for the appointment and the 
subsequent submission of the appointed judge to the 
electorate, the proposed language precludes appointees 
from acting until after an election. Furthermore, tiie 
proposed amendment does not address the 
appointment of temporary judges, without election, 
which is specifically provided for in Section 3-5-201 
Montana Codes Annotated. This practice of 
appointing retired judges to assist with large caseloads 
is frequent and helpful. It expedites rulings and 
actions in cases for less expense and often saves the 
State money. The proposed language will eliminate 
tills benefit. 



conflict. The first section requires all judges to be 
elected while the second section provides for the 
appointment of judges who are not elected. 

Since tiie current Constitutional language requires 
the election of judges, the only objection left is the 
time delay between a judicial appointment and the 
date of die election. Delays are caused by Senate 
confirmation and state election laws. If an 
appointment is made after the legislature adjourns, 
confirmation must wait until the next session, 
approximately two years. This proposal makes no 
change in the confirmation procedures. Existing 
state laws require tiiat a person wishing to be 
included on the statewide general election ballot 
must file for tiie office 75 days prior to tiie primary 
election date. Changes to these laws instead of a 
Constitutional amendment would decrease the 
potential delays. 

The appointment procedure is further complicated by 
the new requirement that no appointee shall serve 
past the term of his predecessor without standing for 
election. As an example of the problem which could 
arise, one should consider an appointment made in 



Sections (1) and (2) of the proposed amendment 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Amendment 22 (continued) 



1992 to fill a position vacated by a judge whose term 
of office would expire in January 1993. If this 
proposed amendment were in effect now, the position 
would again be vacated in January and lengthy 
nomination procedures re-initiated. This could 
postpone Senate confirmation hearings until the 1995 
legislative session. 

Amending our Constitution is not something which 
should be undertaken lightly, and should not be 



considered if existing laws could be changed by the 
legislature to resolve the concerns of the proponents. 

For these reasons, the proposed amendment should 
be rejected. 

This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator James 
Burnett, Representative Dick Simpkins, and 
Ward E. Taleff. 



PROPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument opposing Constitutional Amendment 22 



The opposition to C-22 relies on raising confusion 
rather than substantive issues. A common language 
reading of C-22 reveals that with this change, judges 
will be appointed as in the past, but must stand 
election as soon as possible. C-22 does not raise 
costs. No additional workload is created by C-22 
other than what exists under the current procedure. 
Confirmation hearings have no effect on the cost of 
Senate operations. 

The opponents have chosen to read Section 8, sub. 1 
in the absence of sub. 2 of that same section and vice- 
versa. This confuses and does nothing to speak to the 
issues they portend to raise. 

The diversity of legal opinion on current 
Constitutional language, demonstrates that this 
language is far from sufficient as implied by the 



opponents. The opponent's attempt to shift blame to 
election laws and confirmation procedures is also 
baseless as these laws have no effect on misuse of 
the appointment process. 

The opponents further insist that limiting a judge's 
term to that of his predecessor complicates matters. 
To the contrary, it simplifies them by placing the 
requirement in plain language. 

The proponents of C-22 do agree diat the 
Constitution is not something to be amended 
frivolously. We feel that this most serious step must 
be taken to preserve a basic precept of democracy - 
our right to elect public officials while maintaining 
the integrity of Montana's three branches of 
government. 



OPPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument supporting Constitutional Amendment 22 



Concern for speedy elections of judges is 
understandable. However, this proposed amendment 
could cause a judicial impasse and does not reduce 
election delays. Anyone dissatisfied with a decision by 
a Judge appointed after amending the Constitution 
could appeal the ruling because the judge had not 
been elected and lacked jurisdiction. This could 
jeopardize past decisions. 

The amendment does not adequately address the 
causes of time delays between appointments and 



elections ~ Senate confirmation and state laws. 

The requirement for Senate confirmation prior to 
election is retained. The intent of the framers of our 
Montana Constitution is clear. During the 
convention, election requirements similar to the 
proposed amendment were rejected and the existing 
language requiring confirmation prior to the general 
election was unanimously adopted. 

The Attorney General's opinions upholding the 



Rebuttal of the argument supporting Constitutional Amendment 22 (continued) 



delays were based upon state laws establishing filing 
deadlines for judicial elections. The solution is to 
change the laws. 

Safeguards addressing proponent concerns are already 
in place. The Governor is limited to appointments 
from a list recommended by a Judicial Nominating 
Committee which is required by the Constitution, and 
whose membership and rules are established by the 
legislature. 



If the people want judges elected before they serve, 
the Constitution should be changed to the wording 
rejected by its framers. If the desire is to reduce the 
time delays between appointments and elections, 
then laws should be changed. Legislators who 
overwhelmingly supported this referendum during 
the session should willingly support changing the 
laws. In any case, this proposed amendment should 
be rejected. 



Constitutional Amendment 23 

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT 

Constitutional Amendment 23 

An amendment to the Constitution referred by the Legislature 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO 
ARTICLE X, SECTION 11, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE 
MAY TRANSFER PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION BY 
A GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR LESS THAN FULL 
MARKET VALUE AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAWS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. The Montana Constitution prohibits the sale or transfer of 
public lands unless the state receives the full market value of the land sold. This measure would amend the 
Constitution to allow the transfer of state lands to a political subdivision of the state for less than full market 
value, unless prohibited by federal restrictions, and would allow the Legislature to enact laws providing for 
such disposition of public lands. All other transfers of public land would still require the payment of full 
market value to the State. 

FISCAL NOTE: The proposed amendment's fiscal implications depend upon which land parcels the state 
transfers. Transferring income-producing parcels would result in some loss of income. However, the state 
would realize some fiscal savings because it would not have to manage the parcels. 

D FOR allowing the state to transfer public land to local governments for less than full market value. 

D AGAINST allowing the state to transfer public land to local governments for less than full market value. 



Argument FOR Constitutional Amendment 23 



This amendment has been proposed in order facilitate 
the transfer of property between the State of Montana 
and political subdivisions (e.g. municipalities and 
counties) of the state. 

The State of Montana has acquired and owns 
hundreds of parcels of land which, in many instances, 
are unused. Some of the parcels were donated by 
private landowners, some are remainders of right-of- 
way acquisitions and others have been owned by the 
state for so long that the method of acquisition is no 
longer known. 

In some of these cases, state land has been considered 
by local governments as potential park areas, fair and 



rodeo grounds, recreational access and industrial 
park development. For example, in Lewistown, a 
parcel of state-owned property has been identified as 
potential parkland but the local government is not in 
a position to purchase it from the state at fair market 
value. Even though the local government (Fergus 
County) and area residents are willing to make the 
finances available to turn the area into a park and a 
nature area for educational purposes, the constitution 
requires the state to sell it at fair market value. In 
this particular case, the fair market value would be 
based on residential property prices and would be 
out of financial reach for the Lewistown residents. 
In Helena, a private, non-profit organization is sub- 



Argument FOR Constitutional Amendment 23 (continued) 



leasing the fairgrounds from the county. The county 
leases the property from the State of Montana and 
pays an annual rental fee. The non-profit 
organization continues to put on the county fair and 
host traditional fairgrounds events. Renewed interest 
on the part of local residents for repairing and 
restoring the fairgrounds has revealed problems in 
financing improvements to the grounds because of the 
state ownership of the land. The county would like 
the opportunity to purchase the land from the state 
but, as is the case with Fergus County, is not in the 
financial position to purchase the 300+ acres at the 
fair market price. 

Importantly, passage of this amendment would not 
affect school trust lands. The amendment is limited 
to public lands that are not subject to the restrictions 
of the Federal State Enabling legislation. School trust 
lands would continue to be administered by the State 



Lands Commission and the revenue derived would 
continue to be reserved for schools. 

Another argument for passage of this amendment is, 
as the Attorney General's fiscal note implies, state 
management costs of administering these lands could 
be reduced. If these lands don't benefit state 
government, and yet hold a potential to benefit local 
governments, we believe it is in the best public 
interest to allow local governments to acquire them 
for local projects. The passage of CA 23 would be 
an important first step towards realizing this goal. 
We urge you to consider passage of this important 
amendment. 

The measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Mignon 
Waterman, Representative Larry Hal Grinde, 
and Linda Stoll-Anderson. 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Amendment 23 

No argument was submitted. 



Constitutional Amendment 24 

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT 

Constitutional Amendment 24 

An amendment to the Constitution referred by the Legislature 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO 
ARTICLE X, SECTION 9, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP 
ON THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO EIGHT MEMBERS AND TO REQUIRE THE APPOINTMENT OF 
ONE NATIVE AMERICAN MEMBER. 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to increase the 
membership on the Board of Regents from seven to eight members and require that one member of the Board 
be a Native American. All Board members would still be appointed by the Governor. 

FISCAL NOTE: This measure will increase costs of the Board of Regents by $4,800 per year in travel and 
per diem costs of the additional member. 

D FOR increasing membership on the board of regents to eight members and requiring the appointment of 
one Native American member. 

n AGAINST increasing membership on the board of regents to eight members and requiring the appointment 
of one Native American member. 



Argument FOR Constitutional Amendment 24 



Indian education has lagged behind education for 
whites in Montana over many decades. Even in 1980 
the U.S. Census reflected a large disparity in the 
number of Indian high school graduates as compared 
to graduates from Montana's overall population. At 
that time, 51% of the Montana adult population 
completed high school while less than half that 
number, 23% of the Indian population completed the 
same level. 

In Montana, Indian people make up 6% of the State's 
population. This is the largest minority population by 
far in the State, and it is the minority population that 
is growing most rapidly. According to recent records 
from the Office of Public Instruction in grades K-8, 
the Indian population is 10%; in high school the 
Indian population is 7% according to the Office of 
Public Instruction. Poverty and unemployment are 
the greatest problems the Indian tribes have, and 
poverty and unemployment rates are much higher in 



the State's seven reservations than among white 
areas. 

Article X of the Montana Constitution guarantees 
"equality of educational opportunity to each person 
in the State". The Constitution also recognizes "the 
distinct and unique cultural heritage of American 
Indians" and goes on to emphasize Montana's 
commitment to educational goals designed to 
preserve Indian peoples' cultural integrity. 

Montana Indians exercise their rights as citizens by 
depending upon the public education system. Indian 
people recognize the need for education and have 
made earnest attempts to participate in Montana's 
public school system. 

The failure of Montana's Indian peoples to thrive 
makes it clear that Indian representation on the 
University System Board of Regents is necessary. 



10 



Argument FOR Constitutional Amendment 24 (continued) 



The perspective of an Indian representative would 
further the goal of better participation by Native 
Americans and would ultimately ensure that 
Montana's higher education system will provide an 
environment that brings greater success and equality 
to Montana's largest minority group. 



This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Greg Jergeson, 
Representative Howard Toole, and Rhonda 
Lankford. 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Amendment 24 



Constitutional Amendment C-24 should be rejected 
for three simple reasons: 

1. We Montanans simply must put a stop to the ever- 
increasing size and cost of state government. 
Although this Amendment would not result in a large 
increase in government, the problem is that many 
small increases added together soon become 
significant. In addition, what may look like a small 
increase today seems to have a way of growing 
tomorrow. 

2. It is neither logical nor efficient to have major 
policy-, program-, or budget-planning boards with 
even-numbered memberships. The potential for tie 
votes is too great. This results in ineffective 
management, as well as a lack of majority rule 
decision-making. In short, it is inefficient 
government. 



3. If the Legislature of Montana wants to have a 
Native American Member on the Board of Regents, 
the appropriate way to accomplish it is through 
simple legislation that would require that one of the 
current member-slots be filled by a Native 
American. This is the approach that was used to 
require that one of the slots be filled by a student in 
the Montana university system. A constitutional 
change is not even necessary. 

Constitutional Amendment C-24 is the wrong 
approach and should be rejected. 



This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Lorents 
Grosfield, Representative Ernest Bergsagel, and 
Representative Orval Ellison. 



PROPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument opposing Constitutional Amendment 24 



The opponents of CA 24 made three arguments 
advocating rejection of CA 24. Our response is as 
follows: 

1. Unlike legislative advisory committees which are 
easy to create and whose work is easily forgotten, the 
Board of Regents derive their powers from the 
Montana Constitution. The added perspective of a 
Native American on the Board of Regents is well 
worth the very miniscule cost associated with 
increasing the size of the Board. 

2. The concern about an even-numbered Board is 



false. Even numbered committees work well in the 
Legislature and in city councils around the state. 
Rules could easily be adopted to cover the potential 
problems of an even numbered Board. 

3. The Montana Constitution establishes the Board 
of Regents and describes its powers. Amending the 
Constitution is the most appropriate way to 
permanently change the Board of Regents as 
proposed by CA 24. 

So much of what happens to and for Montana's 
indigenous peoples is at the mercy of the 



11 



PROPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument opposing Constitutional Amendment 24 
(continued) 

establishment which is devoid of American Indian Montana to recognize the importance of having an 

vision, commitment and sensitivity. The time is ripe American Indian on the Board of Regents. We 

for indigenous empowerment and for the people of continue to vigorously urge the adoption of CA 24. 

OPPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument supporting Constitutional Amendment 24 

No rebuttal was submitted 



12 



Constitutional Initiative 63 

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT 

Constitutional Initiative 63 

An amendment to the Constitution proposed by initiative petition 

The Montana Constitution requires that at least 50% of coal severance taxes be dedicated to a trust fund. The 
Legislature may spend trust fund interest and earnings by majority vote, but may not spend its principal without 
a 3/4 vote of each Legislative house. This initiative would amend the Constitution to require that the coal 
severance taxes deposited in the trust fund for the next ten years be placed in a special fund. The special fund's 
principal could be appropriated by majority vote of the Legislature solely for the purpose of financing capital 
costs of local government facilities and improvements. 

FISCAL NOTE: The proposal redirects coal severance tax revenues for ten years from the permanent trust 
account to the Big Sky Dividend Program. Approximately $168.0 million will be available from the trust 
account, over the ten-year period, for the purpose of financing capital costs of facilities and improvements for 
local government units. 

D FOR amending the Constitution to allow the Legislature, by majority vote, to spend coal severance tax trust 
fund principal for local government facilities and improvements. 

n AGAINST amending the Constitution to allow the Legislature, by majority vote, to spend coal severance 
tax trust fund principal for local government facilities and improvements. 



Argument FOR Constitutional Initiative 63 

It's time for Montana to prepare for the future, and 
it's time for Montanans to fix up what we have. 

The Big Sky Dividend, by using the annual coal 
severance tax revenue for the next ten years, will 
provide the necessary funds to repair, replace and 
restore Montana's infrastructure. 

That infrastructure includes water and sewer systems, 
bridges, public buildings, and community facilities of 
all types. 

How great is the need? 59% of Montana's bridges 
are rated as either structurally deficient or functionally 
obsolete for today's needs. $430 million dollars 
worth of repairs and replacements are needed for 
Montana's water systems, sewer systems and solid 
waste facilities. A report originally issued in 1984 
put Montana's total infrastructure needs at $7 billion, 
and that figured was revised upwards this year to $8 



billion! 

It's time to put some money back into Montana. 

The Coal Trust Fund was a wise decision for 
Montana when it was established and the fund has 
now grown to more than $500 million. The Big Sky 
Dividend simply says that for ten years we won't 
add new money to the fund. Nothing will be taken 
from the existing fund which will continue to earn 
interest and continue as it is now. 

The Big Sky Dividend will generate between $15 
million and $20 million a year, which in turn can be 
turned into $45 million to $60 million a year through 
matching grants, local bond issues, federal funds and 
other means. That's as much as $600 million over 
the ten years of the program and that also means 
thousands of new jobs in Montana and expanded 
community spending. 



13 



Argument FOR Constitutional Initiative 63 (continued) 



In the signature collecting process to get this measure 
on the ballot, nearly 50,000 Montanans signed 
petitions. That's the highest number of signatures 
collected in 1992 for ballot issues and indicates the 
support of the program across Montana. 



You are sincerely and strongly urged to vote yes for 
CI-63, the "Big Sky Dividend". 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Ken Dunham, Dennis 
M. Burr, and Milie Mathew. 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Initiative 63 



CI-63 is: 

1 ) Unnecessary because we have already addressed 
Montana's infrastructure problem through the 
Treasure State Endowment. The Treasure State 
Endowment, approved by a vote of the people in 
June, will provide more assistance to local 
government permanently (not just for 10 years) in a 
manner better designed to meet the needs of local 
governments than CI-63. 

The Treasure State Endowment can fund over $100 
million a year even in the first year because of jump 
start bonds, debt retirement subsidies, and other 
options for local government assistance-far more than 
$30 or $40 million under CI-63 if CI-63 is limited to 
a 50% matching grant as the Governor proposes. 

2) A very dangerous precedent for our Coal Tax 
Trust Fund . The Coal Tax Trust Fund is not a rainy 
day fund; it is an endowment. It was intended to set 
aside a portion of the coal tax so that the interest 
income (already over $50 million a year) will benefit 
everyone, now and in the future-money you and I 
would have to make up in additional taxes if the Fund 
is spent. 

CI-63 will spend the Trust Fund. It amends the 
Constitution to allow all the money that would 
otherwise go into the Trust Fund to be sidetracked to 
infrastructure. Once the precedent to tap the Trust is 
set, it will be tapped again and again until it's all 
gone. 

The same thing has already happened in most other 
states with a Trust Fund. The statutory Trust Funds 



in Colorado, Wyoming, and North Dakota have now 
been spent for purposes other than those for which 
they were originally created. 

3) Wasteful because it throws money at local 
governments (through a 50% matching grant) 
whether they need a 50% matching grant or not. 
The existing program will grant assistance according 
to what the local government needs, including, if 
necessary, a 100% grant. 

4) Costly . By taking twice as many dollars out of 
the Coal Trust Fund, it will cost the General Fund 
an additional $35 million in lost interest over the 
next 10 years - $35 million more than the existing 
Treasure State Endowment. 

5) A gigantic pork barrel . As presented to the '91 
Session, final approval would be left to the 
Governor. In other words, the Governor would 
have the power to dole out $15 million a year ($20 
million after 4 years) to local governments. This is 
an invitation to any governor to use the money 
for political advantage. 

6) Harmful to education and water projects . By 

not excluding other funds established after January 
1, 1992 (funds established before that date are 
excluded), CI-63 will eliminate the emergency 
school construction fund created in January 1992 to 
help school districts who need new school buildings 
because of fire damage or other reasons. Similarly, 
by limiting the exclusion to funds "not obligated" to 
repayment of bonds, it appears that all new water 
projects under our very successful coal tax water 



14 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Initiative 63 (continued) 



bond program will be eliminated. 
Vote no on CI-63. 



This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Thomas E. 
Towe, Representative John Johnson, Senator 
Steve Doherty, Representative Hal Harper, and 
Patrick Sweeney. 



PROPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument opposing Constitutional Initiative 63 



When you read CI-63 you will notice that the 
provision protecting the Coal Tax Trust is still in 
place: "The principal of the trust shall forever remain 
inviolate unless appropriated by vote of three- fourths 
(3/4) of the members of each house of the 
legislature." CI-63 proposes that new payments to the 
trust from July 1, 1993 until June 30, 2003 be held in 
a separate fund within the trust. The Coal Tax Trust 
will remain at $550 million. New coal tax collections 
may be used to finance capital costs of facilities and 
improvements for local government units, but only if 
approved by a majority vote of both houses of the 
legislature. 

Is this initiative necessary? YES! Local government 
facilities such as sewer and water systems are 
deteriorating. This initiative provides a source of 



revenue to repair and maintain vital services without 
increasing local property taxes. CI-63 does not spend 
the Coal Tax Trust, and it is not wasteful because 
local government improvements are vital to our 
economic recovery. 

The opponents to the Big Sky Dividend say that it 
leaves final approval of projects to the governor. 
This is simply not true. The legislature will have full 
control over the Big Sky Dividend. Nor will CI-63 
affect the Emergency School Construction Fund or 
the Water Bond Program. 

We urge you to vote in favor of using coal taxes to 
rebuild our local government infrastructure, to 
provide jobs, improve services, and provide the 
framework for economic growth in Montana. 



OPPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument supporting Constitutional Initiative 63 



Don't be fooled. CI-63 is not necessary. The 

Treasure State Endowment, passed by people in June, 
already addresses the infrastructure needs of local 
governments. Existing law already: 

* Finances more construction projects. 

* Is based on actual need of local governments. 

* Is permanent. CI-63 ends in 10 years. 

If CI-63 is passed, it will take all the money, and the 
Treasure State Endowment will go unfunded. 



CI-63 is simply a 
government spending. 



wasteful duplication of 



Don't be fooled. CI-63 will cost taxpayers. At 

least $35 million more will be lost to the State's 
General Fund because of the loss of interest. You 
and I, the taxpayers, will have to pay more taxes to 
make up for this loss. 

Don't be fooled. CI-63 does bust the Coal Tax 
Trust. By stopping the flow of money into the 
Trust for 10 years, it is the first step towards the 
spending of our endowment fund. Another "worthy 
program" will tap a little more, then a little more, 
and it soon will be all gone as it is in Colorado. 
Then, everyone will have to pay more taxes to 
make up for the $50 million in interest income we 



15 



OPPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument supporting Constitutional Initiative 63 
(continued) 

receive from the Trust every year. Also, by limiting emergency school bonds and water 

bonds, it will be harmful to education and to existing 
Don't be fooled. CI-63 is a gigantic porli barrel. water programs. 
By giving final approval to the Governor, he/she can 
use our coal tax endowment money for political 
purposes. 



16 



Constitutional Initiative 64 

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT 

Constitutional Initiative 64 

An amendment to the Constitution proposed by initiative petition 

This initiative would amend the Montana Constitution to prohibit certain public officials from seeking re- 
election if they have already held office for the following number of years: 8 years in any 16-year period for 
governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public 
instruction, state representative, or state senator; 6 years in any 12-year period for United States Representative; 
and 12 years in any 24-year period for United States Senator. An official still could be re-elected by write-in 
vote. The measure would apply only to terms of office that begin during or after January 1993. 

D FOR amending the Constitution to impose limits on how long statewide elected executive officers, state 
legislators and members of congress may hold office. 

n AGAINST amending the Constitution to impose limits on how long statewide elected executive officers, 
state legislators and members of congress may hold office. 



Argument FOR Constitutional Initiative 64 

A citizen state legislature and a citizen Congress are 
clearly what our founding fathers intended. 
Montanans are demanding a return to that kind of 
government. Term limitation is an integral part of 
such a return. No other reform could so quickly 
change our state legislature and our Congress . And no 
other reform could come closer to guaranteeing a 
return to the idea of citizen lawmakers. 

Term limitation can pave the road to citizen victories 
in our state legislature and Congress. It has the 
potential to hamper incumbent abuses. It will likely 
lead the state legislature and Congress to resolve 
problems and legislate more in the public interest. 
And it will bring more private sector know-how and 
expertise to legislating. Most importantly, term 
limitation will encourage more people — citizens — to 
run for office. And these people will view the job as 
a time of service, not a career . This is the essence of 
a true citizen legislature. 

We urge you to vote YES on Constitutional Initiative 
64 (CI-64) and return control of the state legislature 
and the Congress to the people. 



Today's mass media allows the candidate with the 
most money to dominate political campaigns. 
Coupled with political "game-playing" and the 
political "good-old-boy" network, most citizens are 
cut out of the political system . Ordinary citizens, 
who are willing and able to contribute, are 
discouraged from challenging incumbents. And it is 
the long-term incumbents who are the problem. 
Granted, there is turnover in legislative seats every 
election. But these turnovers are almost always 
where incumbents are not entrenched or have opted 
to not run again. Fifty-six percent (56%) of the 
Montana Senators have held their seats for over 
eight (8) years. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of the 
Montana House of Representatives have been there 
over eight (8) years. Montana's two congressmen 
and one senator have been in Washington, D.C. for 
an average of 18 years each. Many of these 
lawmakers have held their rein of political power 
since the 1970s and one has been in the Montana 
House of Representatives since 1959. 

With all this so-called "experience", why are our 
governments so deeply in dept ? Why are our state 



17 



Argument FOR Constitutional Initiative 64 (continued) 



and national programs in so much trouble? Because 
these experienced lawmakers, and their special 
interest, big money lobbyist supporters, are more 
concerned about re-election and political game-playing 
than solving problems for the best of all Montana. 

These long-term, career politicians are the game- 
players and power brokers that really run the 
legislative process in this country. They control the 
all-powerful committees, they have ready access to 
special interest money, they have the perks like 
taxpayer-paid mail, free media and travel expenses 
that can control re-elections. 



This career-politician cycle must be broken, and it 
can not be broken on a local voter level. It must be 
broken statewide and nationally. 

With term limits the voters of Montanans will have 
more choices of both political parties at the polls and 
will take back control of their government. 

This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Representative Fred 
Thomas, Ron Oberlander, and Scott Chatham. 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Initiative 64 



Some folks believe that politicians are reelected to 
office time after time in Montana. But, it "ain't 
so, " and the facts prove it. 

In the last 50 years, no Montana Governor has served 
more than two terms. From 1981 to 1991, 87 new 
members entered the 100-member Montana State 
House of Representatives, and the 50-member 
Montana State Senate saw 36 new faces. 

Ixfng service in Montana's public offices is not an 
issue, and CI-64, imposing mandatory term limits, 
unnecessarily clutters our laws. 

At the Congressional level, Montana would be foolish 
to limit the terms of our delegation. In 1992, 
Montana will elect its sole U.S. Congressman. 
California will have 53. Ours will be one of 435. 
The effect of limited terms on the influence of 
Montana's members of Congress would be 
devastating. The seniority system of Congress gives 
states like Montana a chance. Our small delegation is 
no match for the big city states in terms of numbers. 
But we can outlast 'em. That has been a traditional 
source of our strength. 

Mike Mansfield was the majority leader of the U.S. 
Senate for 16 years. If we had term limitations in 
1961, when he was elected leader, he would not have 
been majority leader at all. He would have been out 
of office! 



Qualifications for Congressmen and Senators are 
established in the U.S. Constitution. We cannot 
strip language from our federal constitution by 
adoption of a state constitutional initiative. Plain 
and simple, CI-64 is illegal. 

Limiting terms would not enhance democracy, it 
would only ensure that voters need not vote to 
achieve change. In fact, term limits prohibit full 
and free democracy by denying voters the right to 
continue to reelect incumbents who are doing a good 
job. 

Limiting terms by requiring turnover of elected 
public officials, would turn control of government 
over to non-elected bureaucrats and paid lobbyists 
who become the seats of knowledge and fKjwer. 
Such lobbyists and bureaucrats have a role in 
government, but it's not to dictate public policy. 

Lastly, the drive for term limits is not a Montana 
grassroots campaign. Citizens for CI-64 received 
their total budget of $25,000 in out-of-state money. 
They sifted it though a Montana-based committee 
and spent it with out-of-state firms that paid people 
to gather signatures! Montanans should not be 
fooled by out-of-state interests who want to dictate 
our electoral policy. 

CI-64 should be defeated before we shoot ourselves 
in the political foot, or, more accurately, blow off 



18 



Argument AGAINST Constitutional Initiative 64 (continued) 



our whole political leg! Full and free democratic 
elections were fought for and paid for by the blood of 
millions of Americans. We should reject this anti- 
democratic, anti-American proposal and retain our 
freedom to choose. 



This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Chet Blaylock, 
Representative Sheila Rice, Rick Bartos, Donald 
Judge, and Senator Bob Brown. 



PROPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument opposing Constitutional Initiative 64 



CLOUT: Opponents say term limits will curtail 
"clout" of long-term, career politicians for small 
states like Montana. Term limits will give our elected 
officials greater "clout" than thev have now because 
we will elect average citizens to office who share our 
concerns about the future. Instead of waiting years 
before they are allowed by senior members to take 
part in making policy, our term-limited lawmakers 
will hit the deck running, knowing that their mandate 
is to make life better for us... not for themselves. 

We are not alone in voting on term limits. It is a 
national movement. Almost every state in the West - 
- including California - as well as states like Florida, 
Ohio and Michigan are making the same choice for 
term limits that we are. Colorado voted in 
Congressional term limits in 1990. 



OUT-OF-STATE MONEY: Opponents say CI-64 
is not a grassroots effort in Montana. Over 57,000 
Montana voters signed CI-64 petitions. Over 
$16,000 has been raised so far within Montana to 
support CI-64. If you want to question out-of-state 
money, check the contributor lists of Congressional 
incumbents over the past decade and learn that a 
majority of their re-election money has come from 
out-of-state, special interests. 

IS IT LEGAL? Opponents say CI-64 is 
unconstitutional. The Contintution limits only what 
government can do, not the people. State term limit 
drives are an expression of the peoples' right to 
change government. Plain and simple. CI-64 is 
legal! 



OPPONENTS' rebuttal of the argument supporting Constitutional Initiative 64 



Montana will soon have only three members of 
Congress - about .6% of its membership. If we limit 
ourselves to whom we can reelect to Congress, the 
effect on the congressional reelection rate would be 
almost too small to measure. 

However, CI 64 would severely limit the influence of 
Montana's congressional delegation in the seniority 
based system of Congress. It makes no sense for 
Montanans to handicap themselves with term limits 
when most other states are not even considering doing 
so. This alone is a powerful reason for rejecting CI 
64. 

Even the authors of CI 64 concede that in the past 
eight years the Montana legislature has had a turn 
overrate of 57%. In the past seventeen years 97% of 
the faces have changed. Legislative reelection is 



not an issue. 

Authors of CI 64 say its passage will dramatically 
rid government of "game-playing," networking and 
politicians concerned with reelection. Unfortunately, 
no such ideal system existed at the time of the 
founding fathers or at any other time. Citizens, with 
human strengths and weaknesses, elect our 
governments and hold our offices. With or without 
CI 64 our government will be a reflection of us. 

Only free people, voting responsibly and 
intelligently, can properly determine who should 
hold office and how long they should remain. That 
is the essential function of a democracy. Our time 
honored constitutional right to decide whom to elect 
and reelect should not be infringed. Vote against CI 
64. 



19 



Complete text of proposed ballot issues 

The Complete Text of Constitutional Amendment 22 



AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED 
ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO 
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 8, OF THE MONTANA 
CONSTITUTION TO GENERALLY REVISE THE LAW 
RELATING TO THE SELECTION OF SUPREME 
COURT JUSTICES AND DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; 
TO REQUIRE THAT ELECTION, CONFIRMATION, 
AND RETENTION OF JUSTICES OR JUDGES MUST 
BE AS PROVIDED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN 
IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 

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

Section 1. Article VII, section 8, of The Constitution 
of the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 8. Selection. (H Supreme court justices and 
district court judges shall be elected by the qualified 
electors as provided by law. 

{2} The For any vacancy in the office of supreme 
court justice or district court judge, the governor shall 
nominate a ppoint a replacement from nominees selected in 
the manner provided by law for any vacancy in the office 
of supreme court justice or district court judg e. If the 
governor fails to nom i nate a ppoint within thirty days after 
receipt of nominees, the chief justice or acting chief justice 
shall make the nomination appointment from the same 
nominees within thirty days of the governor's failure to 
appoint . Appointments made under this subsection shall be 
subject to confirmation by the senate, as provided bv law. 
Each nom i nation shall be confirmed by the senate, but a 
nomination made while the s enate is not in s e ss ion shal l b e 
effect i ve as an appointment until the end of the next 
s ession. If the nomination is not confirmed, the office s hall D 
be vacant and another selection and nomination shall be 
made. 



incumbent shall bo placed on the bal l ot. If there is no 
election contest for the office, the name of the incumbent 
s hall nevertheless be placed on the general election bal l ot 
to allow voters of the state or district to approve or reject 
him. If an incumbent i s rejected, another select i on and 
nomination shall be made. 

(3) If an incumbent does not run, there shall be an 
election for the office. If the appointee is not confirmed, 
the office shall be vacant and a replacement shall be made 
under the procedures provided for in this section. The 
appointee shall serve until the election for the office as 
provided by law and until a successor is elected and 
qualified. The person elected or retained at the election 
shall serve until the expiration of the term for which his 
predecessor was elected. No appointee, whether 
confirmed or unconfirmed, shall serve past the term of 
his predecessor without standing for election. 

(3) If an incumbent files for election and there is no 
election contest for the office, the name of the incumbent 
shall nevertheless be placed on the general election-ballot 
to allow the voters of the state or district to approve or 
reject him. If an incumbent is rejected, the vacancy in the 
office for which the election was held shall be filled as 
provided in subsection (2). " 

Section 2. Effective date. This amendment is effective 
on approval by the electorate. 

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at 
the general election to be held in November 1992 by 
printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the 

following: 



(2) If, at the first elect i on after senate confirmation, 
and at the election before each s ucceeding term of office, 
any candidate other than the i ncumbent ju s tice or d i strict 
judge files for election to that office, the name of the 



n 



FOR amending the constitution to mandate the 
election of justices and judges as provided by 
law. 

AGAINST amending the constitution to mandate 
the election of justices and judges as provided by 
law. 



20 



The complete text of Constitutional Amendment 23 



AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED 
ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO 
ARTICLE X, SECTION 11, OF THE MONTANA 
CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE 
MAY TRANSFER PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE 
THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION BY A 
GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT FOR LESS THAN FULL MARKET 
VALUE AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAWS; AND 
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

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

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



may be provided by law, has been paid or safely secured 
to the state. 

(3) No land which the state holds by grant from the 
United States which prescribes the manner of disposal and 
minimum price shall be disposed of except in the manner 
and for at least the price prescribed without the consent of 
the United States. 

(4) All public land shall be classified by the board of land 
commissioners in a manner provided by law. Any public 
land may be exchanged for other land, public or private, 
which is equal in value and, as closely as possible, equal 
in area. Any public land that is not subject to the 
restrictions of a grant from the United States may be 
transferred to a political subdivision of the state for less 
than full market value in pursuance of general laws 
providing for such disposition." 



"Section 11. Public land trust, disposition, (1) All lands 
of the state that have been or may be granted by congress, 
or acquired by gift or grant or devise from any person or 
corporation, shall be public lands of the state. They shall 
be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as 
hereafter provided, for the respective purposes for which 
they have been or may be granted, donated or devised. 

(2) Ne Except as provided in subsection (4). no such land 
or any estate or interest therein shall ever be disposed of 
except in pursuance of general laws providing for such 
disposition, or until the full market value of the estate or 
interest disposed of, to be ascertained in such manner as 



Section 2. Effective date. This amendment is effective 
on approval by the electorate. 

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at 
the general election to be held in November 1992 by 
printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the 
following: 

D FOR allowing the state to transfer public land to 
local governments for less than full market value. 

D AGAINST allowing the state to transfer public 
land to local governments for less than full market 
value. 



The complete text of Constitutional Amendment 24 



AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED 
ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO 
ARTICLE X, SECTION 9, OF THE MONTANA 
CONSTITUTION TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP 
ON THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO EIGHT MEMBERS 
AND TO REQUIRE THE APPOINTMENT OF ONE 
NATIVE AMERICAN MEMBER. 

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

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



"Section 9. Boards of education. (1) There is a state 
board of education composed of the board of regents of 
higher education and the board of public education. It is 
responsible for long-range planning, and for coordinating 
and evaluating policies and programs for the state's 
educational systems. It shall submit unified budget 
requests. A tie vote at any meeting may be broken by the 
governor, who is an ex officio member of each component 
board. 

(2) (a) The government and control of the Montana 
university system is vested in a board of regents of higher 
education which shall have full power, responsibility, and 



21 



The complete text of Constitutional Amendment 24 (continued) 



authority to supervise, coordinate, manage and control the 
Montana university system and shall supervise and 
coordinate other public educational institutions assigned by 
law. 

(b) The board consists of sevefi eight members^ 
including one Native American member, appointed by the 
governor, and confirmed by the senate, to overlapping 
terms, as provided by law. The governor and 
superintendent of public instruction are ex officio non- 
voting members of the board, (c) The board shall appoint 
a commissioner of higher education and prescribe his term 
and duties. 

(d) The funds and appropriations under the control of 
the board of regents are subject to the same audit 
provisions as are all other state funds. 

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

(b) The board consists of seven members appointed by 



the governor, and confirmed by the senate, to overlapping 
terms as provided by law. The governor, commissioner of 
higher education and state superintendent of public 
instruction shall be ex officio non-voting members of the 
board." 

Section 2. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at 
the general election to be held in November 1992 by 
printing on the ballot the fiill title of this act and the 
following: 

n FOR increasing membership on the board of 
regents to eight members and requiring the 
appointment of one Native American member. 

n AGAINST increasing membership on the board of 
regents to eight members and requiring the 
appointment of one Native American member. 



The complete text of Constitutional Initiative 63 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE at least f i fty percent (50%) of the sovcranco tax shall be 
OF MONTANA: dedicated to the trust fund. 



Section I. Article IX, section 5, of the Constitution of the 
State of Montana is amended to read: 
"Section 5. Severance tax on coal - trust fund. (1) The 
legislature shall dedicate not less than one fourth (1/ 4 ) fifty 
percent(50%) of the coal severance tax to a trust fund, the 
interest and income from which may be appropriated. 

(2) The Except as provided in subsection (3). the principal 
of the trust shall forever remain inviolate unless 
appropriated by vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the members 
of each house of the legislature. After Docomber 31, 1970, 



(3) From Julv 1. 1993. through June 30. 2003. collections 
of the severance tax deposited in the trust fund and not 
obligated to the payment or security of debt payable from 
the trust fund and not obligated for deposit in other funds 
established prior to Januarv 1. 1992. shall be held in 
separate Big Sky Dividend fund within the trust fund. The 
fund may be appropriated by a majority of the members of 
each house of the legislature solely for the purpose of 
financing capital costs of facilities and improvements for 
local government units." 



The complete text of Constitutional Initiative 64 



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

Section I . Article IV of The Constitution of the State of 
Montana is amended by adding new section 8 that reads: 



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 



22 



The complete text of Constitutional Initiative 64 (continued) 



of that office, the candidate will have served in that office 
or had he not resigned or been recalled would have 
served in that office; 

(a) 8 or more years in any 16-year period as 
governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of 
state, state auditor, 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. Severability. If a part of this amendment 

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

Section 3. Applicability. Section 1 applies to terms that 
begin during or after January 1993. 

Section 4. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, 
this initiative is effective January 1, 1993. 



23 



What do I do when I get to the polls? 

Voting is a simple procedure. There will be several people 
(called election judges) at the polls to assist you. 

Give your name to the first election judge, who will check 
for your name on the registration list and ask you to sign 
your name as it is listed in the book. You will then be 
given your ballot and directed to a voting booth. 

After voting, return the ballot to the election judge at the 
ballot box. The judge will place the voted ballot in the 
ballot box. That's all there is to it! 

What if I can't vote on election day? 
You can vote an absentee ballot if you cannot get to the 
polls because you: 1) expect to be absent from your 
precinct or county on election day, 2) are physically 
incapacitated, 3) suffer from chronic illness or general ill 
health, or 4) have a health emergency between 5 p.m. on 
October 30 and noon on election day. 

If you qualify for absentee ballot, contact your county 
election administrator (usually the clerk and recorder) to 



request an absentee ballot application. Absentee ballots may 
be requested starting August 20 for the 1992 general 
election. Absentee ballots will be accepted up to noon the 
day before the election. 

How can I find out if I am registered? 

If you have voted since that last presidential election, you 
are still registered to vote. If you are not sure if you are or 
where you are registered, you should contact your county 
election administrator. The registration deadline for the 
general election is October 5. 

Who is eligible to register 

Anyone who is a citizen of the U.S. at least eighteen years 
of age, and a resident of Montana and the county for thirty 
days by the date of the election may register to vote. 
(However, convicted felons serving a sentence in a penal 
institution or individuals determined by a court to be of 
unsound mind may not register to vote.) 

The voter registration card must be completed and signed 
before a witness before being turned in to the election 
administrator. The witness can be another registered voter 
from your county, a deputy registrar, or the election 
administrator. 



Additional copies of this Voter Information Pamphlet are available upon request from your county election 
administrator or the Secretary of State. 

This document printed on recycled paper. 

425,000 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $0.05 per copy, for a total of $22,319.75, which includes $22,319.75. 
Distribution costs paid for by county governments. 



COUNTY ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR 
County Courthouse 

DO NOT FORWARD