(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 "Voter information for proposed constitutional amendments, referendums, initiatives ..."

s 

324.786 
S2v 

1976 



STATEJGCUMENTS 

VOTER °" ' '^~ 

INFORMATION 

FOR 

PROPOSED 

CONSTITUTIONAL 

AMENDMENTS 



REFERENDUMS 



INITIATIVES 



General Election 
November 2, 1976 



Prepared by FRANK MURRAY, Secretary of State, 

pursuant to Sections 23-2802 and 37-107, 

Revised Codes of Montana 



STATE 

11 



STATE PUBLISHING CO.-LITHO 



Montana State Library 



3 0864 1004 3873 1 



Table of Contents 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, REFERENDUMS AND INITIATIVES 



General Election Ballot, November 2, 1976 



Pages 

Constitutional Amendment No. 3 - Coal Tax Trust Fund 1-5 

Constitutional Initiative Amendment No. 7 - Budget Ceiling 5-9 

Referendum No. 70 - Library Mill Levy 9-15 

Initiative No. 71 - Nuclear Facility Act 15-20 

Initiative No. 72 - State Funded Homestead Tax Relief Act 20-25 

Initiative No. 73 - Recall and Advisory Recall Act 25-32 



Page One 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This proposed amendment to the Montana Constitution would add a new section to the Article 
on Environment and Natural Resources. The amendihent would create a trust fund which would 
be funded by one-fourth (1/4) of the money received from the coal severance tax. Beginning in 
1980 one-half (1/2) of the coal severance tax would be used to fund the trust. Income and interest 
from the trust could be spent by a majority vote of the legislature. The principal of the trust, 
which the legislature has termed "permanent", could only be spent by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of 
the legislature. 



The following is a copy of the title and text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment as 
passed by the second regular session of the Forty-fourth Montana Legislature and approved by W. 
Gordon McOmber, President of the Senate, and Pat McKittrick, Speaker of the House of 
Representatives on the 19th day of April, 1975. 

CHAPTER NO. 499 

MONTANA SESSION LAWS 1975 

SENATE BILL NO. 407 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT 
TO THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE THE LEGISLATURE TO DEDICATE A PORTION 
OF THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX TO A PERMANENT TRUST FUND. 

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

Section 1. Article IX of the Montana constitution is amended by adding a new section 5 that 
reads as follows: 

Section 5. Severance tax on coal— trust fund. The legislature shall dedicate not less than one- 
fourth (1/4) of the coal severance tax to a trust fund, the interest and income from which may be 
appropriated. 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 December 31, 1979, at 
least fifty percent ( 50% ) of the severance tax shall be dedicated to the trust fund. 

Section 2. When this amendment is submitted to the quahfied electors of Montana, there 
shall be printed on the ballot the full title and section 1 of this act and the following words: 



For a permanent trust fund from coal taxes. 



Against a permanent trust fund from coal taxes." 



Page Two 

Comparison of Existing Constitutional Provision and 
Proposed Constitutional Amendment is as foUows: 

The following is a true and exact copy of No existing section for comparison, 

the PROPOSED NEW SECTION 5 to Ar- 
ticle IX of the Constitution of the State of 
Montana: 

Section 5. Severance tax on coal-trust 
fund. The legislature shall dedicate not less 
than one- fourth (1/4) of the coal severance tax 
to a trust fund, the interest and income from 
which may be appropriated. 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 December 31. 1979, at least fifty per- 
cent (50%) of the severance tax shaU be 
dedicated to the trust fund. 



The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Official 
Ballot at the General Election, November 2, 1976, is as follows: 



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This proposed amendment to the Montana Constitution would add a new section to the Article 
on Environment and Natural Resources. The amendment would create a trust fund which would 
be funded by one-fourth (1/4) of the money received from the coal severance tax. Beginning in 
1980 one-half (1/2) of the coal severance tax would be used to fund the trust. Income and interest 
from the trust could be spent by a majority vote of the legislature. The principal of the trust, 
which the legislature has termed "permanent", could only be spent by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of 
the legislature. 



AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT 
TO THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE THE LEGISLATURE TO DEDICATE A PORTION 
OF THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX TO A PERMANENT TRUST FUND. 

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

Section 1. Article IX of the Montana constitution is amended by adding a new section 5 that 
reads as follows: 

Section 5. Severance tax on coal— trust fund. The legislature shall dedicate not less than one- 
fourth (1/4) of the coal severance tax to a trust fund, the interest and income from which may be 
appropriated. The principal of the trust shall forever remain inviolate unless appropriated by vote 



Page Three 



of three-fourths (3/4) of the members of each house of the legislature. After December 31, 1979, at 
least fifty percent (50%) of the severance tax shall be dedicated to the trust fund. 



For a permanent trust fund from coal taxes. 



Against a permanent trust fund from coal taxes. 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

Montana has estimated coal reserves of 108 billion tons-25% of the nation's coal supply and 
over 10% of the world's coal supply. Montana has 52% of the nation's low sulphur coal reserves. 
Because of the importance of coal, it is an extremely valuable resource both for the state of 
Montana and for the United States. 

Coal is irreplaceable. What will we have to show for this valuable resource once it is all mined 
and gone? We once had fabulous copper reserves but now we have very little to show for our 
copper resource. We should not make this mistake again. 

Another area of the country is known for its fabulous coal resources. This area is Appalachia. 
Appalachia is also known for the poverty of it's people. The Montana legislature was determined 
that the fabulous wealth underlying Eastern Montana should not be translated into poverty of 
Eastern Montanans and that the state of Montana should have something to show for this 
valuable resource once it is gone. Thus, they levied the highest coal tax in the nation on coal mined 
from strip mines in Montema. 

Setting aside 25% (50% after 1980) of coal tax revenues in a permanent trust fund is a sound 
way to manage Montana coal revenues. We should not be short sighted and spend all our tax 
income as rapidly as we earn it. 

Further, we become addicted to all coal monies in support of the states' day-to-day operations, 
our decision makers will be biased in favor of more and more coal mining. They will lack the in- 
dependence they now enjoy to decide what is best for the people, the air, the water, and the land in 
the coal rich areas of the state. Then, too, if we are directly dependent upon all of the coal revenue 
to support our day-to-day expenditures we will be severely punished financially on the day when 
the coal no longer exists or has value. 

The last session of the Montana legislature, by an overwhelming vote, has placed this 
proposition on the ballot. Legislators know how tempting it is to dip into the coal tax monies with 
this and that "worthy project" until in the distant future there is nothing to serve as a revenue 
generating investment base. The proposals for use of coal tax revenues have already started 
mounting and pressures will be placed on the next session of the legislature to carve out more and 
more of the tax revenues for all sorts of "worthy projects." By passing this amendment we will 
guarantee an endowment for the future and avoid temptations to spend it now. 

This proposal is one of the most forward looking proposals ever presented to the people of this 
state. It will demonstrate to future generations of Montanans that we chose to share the riches of 
this state's non-renewable resource heritage with them. 

S/ Thomas E. Towe 
Chet Blaylock 
John Driscoll 



Page Four 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

The proposed constitutional amendment would set up another trust fund. Initially, at least 
25% of the coal severance tax would be placed in the trust account. Commencing in 1980, this 
would increase to 50%. On the basis of the severance tax collected during three quarters of the 
1975-76 fiscal year at the new tax rates, the total tax receipts for the year would have been $28 
million. The tax receipt estimate for this tax by the State Revenue Department for the 1976-77 
fiscal year is $38 milUon. It appears that by 1980 when the 50% provision would apply that the 
accumulation in the proposed trust fund would exceed $20 million a year. In a relatively short 
period of time the assets of the trust account would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. 

By necessity the State is in the investment business, investing surplus state funds, retirement 
funds, local government funds, and the like. It does not follow that it is good government to ac- 
cumulate a vast amount of money in a trust account for investment purposes. Investment of funds 
should remain primarily within the private section of the economy. Although there are safeguards 
regulating investments being made by the State, there is no guarantee that political favoritism or 
mismanagement will not creep into the program. 

There is an old adage that money corrupts. The proposed constitutional amendment requires 
three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature to approve spending the principal of 
the trust. Even with this restriction, it is questionable that such vast accumulation of funds 
should be controlled by politicians. The larger the accumulation of trust funds, the greater the 
temptation will be for future legislators to spend the principal. In the opinion of some there have 
been times when past state legislatures have been self-serving. There is no reason to believe that 
such a situation will not exist in the future. 

Finally, the people of this state approved a measure in 1974 providing for a constitutional 
amendment for a resource indemnity trust fund. This account is currently being funded by a 1/2 of 
1% tax on the gross value of all minerals, including coal. That constitutional amendment provided 
that the assets of that trust up to $100 million is protected and cannot be spent by future 
legislatures. The proposed constitutional amendment would create a second trust fund 
proliferating constitutional provisions and administrative duties. 

These are some of the reasons why the proposed amendment should not be adopted. 

S/ Dan Yardley 
Harold C. Nelson 
Francis Bardanouve 



ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

The revenue from the coal severance tax is already being spent, with over 40% of the funds 
going to those local areas which have increased tax costs resulting from coal development. This 
money has been allotted to counties, towns and school districts which have had substantial in- 
creases in expenditures resulting directly or indirectly from the increased mining or use of coal. 
Ten percent of the revenue for four years will be used to improve the highways in the coal areas. In 
allocating these expenditures, the Legislature has attempted to use funds derived from coal to 
provide relief from the tax burden caused by the development of coal as a major source of energy. 

Besides earmarking fimds to the coal areas, the Legislature has further provided that 5% of the 
coal tax revenue is to be used to acquire parks and similar sites which will have a lasting value to 
the people of this state. Ten percent of the coal tax money is earmarked to the state fund for the 



Page Five 



public school system. Additional small percentages of the coal tax revenue have been set aside for 
planning at the county level and also for research on other forms of energy. 

By providing for a wide range of uses for the severance tax revenue, the Legislature has 
adequately provided for the use of the funds received from coal without setting up a multi-milhon 
dollar trust fund. Therefore, the proposed constitution2d amendment is unnecessary at this time. 

S/ Dan Yardley 

Francis Bardanouve 



ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

It is true that the proposed constitutional amendment would establish another trust but this is 
what is needed. If such a trust is not established, all the money that we derive from the taxes on 
coal will be gone when the coal is gone. The money from the coal tax should be handled with £ill 
future generations in mind, not just this one. 

The opponents of the proposed trust admit that the state must invest funds now and that they 
are doing it weU. To follow this with the assertion that the investment of funds should remain 
primarily within the private sector of the economy is not logical nor do they present any facts to 
prove the assertion. 

The opponents state that having such a large trust would be a temptation and should not be 
available to poUticians. The money from the coal tax will be available to the legislature under 
either system but without the estabUshment of the trust, legislature will be able to spend each 
year's income for whatever cause by a simple majority vote. With the trust, they can only dip into 
the principal if they can gamer a 3/4 vote of each house of the legislature. Such a vote is extremely 
difficult to achieve without proving a compelling necessity. 

The estabUshment of another trust with its administrative costs is a small price to pay to 
assure that future generations of Montanans receive their fair share of our black gold. 

S/ Chet Blaylock 
Thomas Towe 
John Driscoll 



CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE AMENDMENT NO. 7 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This proposed amendment to the Montana Constitution would amend section 9 (Balanced 
Budget) of the Article on Revenue and Finance. The amendment would limit state spending to 
$375 million for each two year period until July 1, 1983. As a point of reference, the state spent a 
total of $1.1 billion in the current two year period, including expenditures of state tax monies, 
earmarked revenue funds, and federal funds. The amendment would also reduce the eunount of 
federal funds the state may accept by 15% a year until July 1, 1984, after which time the state 
could not accept any federal funds. v 



Page Six 



The following is a copy of the text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment to Section 9, 
Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Montana as it appears in the Official files of the 
Secretary of State: 

THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the people of the State of Montana, being legal voters; 

Article VIII Section 9 of the 1972 Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read as 
follows: 

Section 9, Balanced Budget, 

( 1 ) Appropriations by the legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue. 

[2] Appropriation may not exceed the sum of three hundred seventy-five million dollars 
[$375,000,000.00] for any biannum commencing prior to July 1, 1983. 

[3] The legislature shall provide for a 15% annual phase out of all aid from the United States 
such that no federal revenue sharing programs or grant-in-aid from the United States shall be 
accepted after July 1, 1984 

All provisions of this act shall supersede and take presidence over any previous act to the 
contrary. If any one or more articles, provisions, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or 
word of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be un- 
constitutional or invalid, the same is hereby declared to be severable and the balance of this part 
shall remain effective notwithstanding such unconstitutionality or invalidity. The people hereby 
declare that they would have passed this part, and each article, provision, section, subsection, 
sentence, clause, phrase or word thereof, irrespective of this fact that any one or more article, 
provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word be declared unconstitutional or 
invalid. 



Comparison of Existing Constitutional Provision and 
Proposed Constitutional Amendment is as follows: 



The following is a true and exact copy of 
the PROPOSED AMENDMENT to Section 
9, Article VIII of the Constitution of the 
State of Montana: 

Section 9. Balanced Budget. 

(1) Appropriations by the legislature shall 
not exceed anticipated revenue. 



The following is a true and exact copy of 
Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution 
of the State of Montana as it exists at the 
present time: 

Section 9. Balanced budget. Ap- 
propriations by the legislature shall not 
exceed anticipated revenue. 



Page Seven 



(2) Appropriation may not exceed the sum 
of three hundred seventy-five miUion dollars 
($375,000,000.00) for any biannum com- 
mencing prior to July 1, 1983. 

(3) The legislature shall provide for a 15% 
annual phase out of all aid from the United 
States such that no federal revenue sharing 
programs or grant-in-aid from the United 
States shall be accepted after July 1, 1984. 



The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Official 
Ballot at the General Election, November 2, 1976, is as follows: 



PROPOSED PETITION FOR INITIATIVE 

CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE AMENDMENT NO. 7 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This proposed amendment to the Montana Constitution would amend section 9 (Balanced 
Budget) of the Article on Revenue and Finance. The amendment would limit state spending to 
$375 million for each two year period until July 1, 1983. As a point of reference, the state spent a 
total of $1.1 billion in the current two year period, including expenditures of state tax monies, 
earmarked revenue funds, and federal funds. The amendment would also reduce the amount of 
federal funds the state may accept by 15% a year until July 1, 1984, after which time the state 
could not accept any federal funds. 



Be it enacted by the people of the State of Montana, being legal voters: 

Article VIII Section 9 of the 1972 Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read as 
follows: 

Section 9, Balanced Budget, 

( 1 ) Appropriations by the legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue. 

[2] Appropriation may not exceed the sum of three hundred seventy-five million dollars 
[$375,000,000.00] for any biannum commencing prior to July 1, 1983. 

[3] The legislature shall provide for a 15% annual phase out of all aid from the United States 
such that no federal revenue sharing programs or grant-in-aid from the United States shall be 
accepted after July 1, 1984 



Page Eight 

For a $375 million limitation on state spending and a phase out of federal funds. ''. 

Against a $375 million limitation on state spending and a phase out of federal funds. j 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

(NO ARGUMENT SUBMITTED BY DEADLINE DATE) 
ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

Higher taxes, poor schools, and bad roads. These are all likely effects of this amendment. 

Basically, the amendment does two things. First, it pnts a flat $375 million limit on spending 
by the Montana Legislature each session until 1983. Second, it "phases out" all federal funding to 
Montana, so that by 1984 no federal money at all can be received. Taken together, these two 
limitations would be disasterous for Montana. 

The $375 million limit is already in dispute. By comparison, the Legislature spent about $1.1 
billion during the past two years. The drafters of the amendment have said that they didn't intend 
to limit all spending, just spending out of the general fund. The Attorney General has said that the 
language limits all spending. Then there's "biannum"; the word, if it is one, is not in the dic- 
tionary. A voter can't know for sure what the amendment means until a final decision is made by 

the courts. 

Consider the "phase out" of federal funds. Next fiscal year, the state and local governments 
and school districts wiU receive over $260 milUon from the federal government, and this amount is 
sure to be greater by 1984. Under this amendment, all of that money — which is our money, 
collected by the federal government from taxes paid by Montanans— would have to be turned 
away, to be used in other states. Meanwhile, local taxes would have to be increased to make up for 
those lost dollars. 

What's this money used for? Often for things we don't think of as coming from federal money. 
Like highways. Not just interstate highways, but a whole range of state, county and city roads. In 
1977, we're scheduled to receive about $71 million, over two-thirds of the Highway Department's 
budget, from federal money. Without that money, we couldn't afford to keep up the roads and 
streets we now have, let alone build new ones. 

The money goes to schools. The projected figure for 1977 comes to over $34 million. The money 
helps to pay for the basic cost of running the school systems and also supports programs Hke the 
school lunch program, education for the handicapped, and vocational education. 

Look at some of the other figures for 1977: $26 million for job training and employment op- 
portunities. $7 million for law enforcement. $5 miUion for recreation and wildlife programs. $23 
million for the Medicaid program. And millions more for programs ranging from public assistance 
to programs for the aged to sewer system construction. 

If this amendment passes, all of these programs would have to be chopped or local taxes m- 
creased to pick up the difference. Not just a small increase. There are no firm figures right now, 
but it appears that in some locaUties in Montana, property taxes would have to be doubled or 
tripled just to support the school system. Local sales taxes, increased income taxes, even a return 
of the poll tax could well become necessary, just to support a "bare bones" government. 

S/ Francis Bardanouve 
Robert C. Kuchenbrod 
D. Robert Lohn 
Marjorie Matheson 
Peter M. (Mike) Meloy 



Page Nine 



ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

(NO REBUTTAL ARGUMENT REQUIRED) 

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

(NO REBUTTAL ARGUMENT REQUIRED) 



REFERENDUM NO. 70 

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement 

Referendum No. 70 was introduced as House Bill No. 55 in the regular session of the 44th 
Legislature of the State of Montana. H. B. 55 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 74 
for and 21 against with 5 members excused. The Senate vote was 45 to 4 in favor of the bill with 1 
member excused. House Bill No. 55 was approved by the Governor on April 14, 1975. 



Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The 1975 Legislature passed a bill providing for a program to develop and strengthen local 
public libraries in Montana. The Legislature further provided that the funding for this program 
would be put to a popular vote at this election. The proposed program would be administered by 
the Montana Ubrary commission, which would distribute the funds through public library 
federations. The funds involved would be derived from a one ( 1 ) mill levy on all taxable property in 
the state for the next ten (10) years, if the levy is approved by the electorate at this election. 



The following is a copy of the title and text of the proposed Referendum as passed by the i 

Forty-fourth session of the Montana Legislature and approved by the Governor on April 14, 1975 j 

as it appears in the 1975 Montana Session Laws: 1 

CHAPTER 416 { 

MONTANA SESSION LAWS 1975 I 

i 

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A POPULAR VOTE ON THE QUESTION OF STATE FUN- 
DING TO PUBLIC LIBRARY FEDERATIONS WITH A ONE(l) MILL LEVY ON ALL 

TAXABLE PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE STATE LIBRARY COMMISSION TO ] 

DISTRIBUTE GRANTS TO PUBLIC LIBRARY FEDERATIONS; DEFINING GRANT i 

PROGRAMS; AMENDING SECTION 84-3804, R.C.M. 1947. \ 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Montana: \ 

Section 1. There is anew R.C.M. section numbered 44-304 that reads as follows: '; 

44-304. Purpose. It is the purpose of this act to estabUsh a program whereby state funds ■ 

appropriated to the Montana state library commission may be allocated among three different \ 

grant programs. Such program of state funding is intended to provide the benefits of quality i 

public hbrary service to all residents of Montana by developing and strengthening local public ] 
libraries through library federations as defined in section 44-212. 

Section 2. There is a new R.C.M. section numbered 44-305 that reads as follows: i 



Page Ten 



44-305. Administration by Montana state library commission. The Montana state library 
commission shall receive and administer the appropriation for state funding to public library 
federations. The commission shall allocate such appropriation to three types of grant programs 
according to section 44-307 and shall make grants to duly constituted library federations ac- 
cording to program applications submitted to and approved by the commission. Federations 
receiving grant monies shall report semiannually to the commission concerning the progress of the 
various projects for which state funding grants have been received, which report shall contain an 
accounting for all grant funds received. 

Section 3. There is a new R.C.M. section numbered 44-306 that reads as follows: 

44-306. Definitions of grant programs. ( 1 ) Basic grant defined : Basic grants are annual grants 
given to all federation headquarters Ubraries for the purpose of improving public Ubrary services 
within the federation and enabling public libraries within the federation to achieve and maintain 
the Montana public library standards as adopted and amended from time to time by the Montana 
state library commission. 

(2) Establishment grant defined: Establishment grants are grants to federation headquarters 
libraries in order to provide basic library service to governmental units participating in library 
federations for the first time. The local governmental unit must contract with the headquarters 
hbrary for federation services according to the provisions of section 44-213, and must contribute to 
the costs of providing such services. All funds will be administered by the federation headquarters 
library. 

(3) Special project grant defined: Special project grants are grants to federation headquarters 
Ubraries to implement services not provided for in basic grants or to provide construction funds or 
remodelling funds. Grants for construction or remodelling must be equally matched by local 
funds; grants for services may fund the full cost of such services. 

Section 4. There is a new R.C.M. section numbered 44-307 that reads as follows: 

44-307. Allocation of funds by grant program. The Montana state library commission shall 
allocate state funding appropriations among three grant programs on the following basis: sixty 
percent (60%) of each annual appropriation shall be allocated to the basic grant program; thirty 
percent (30%) of each annual appropriation shall be allocated to the establishment grant program; 
amd ten percent (10%) of each annual appropriation shall be allocated to the special project grant 
program. 

Section 5. There is a new R.C.M. section numbered 44-308 that reads as follows: 

44-308. Formulae for distribution of grants. (1) The formula for distribution of basic grants 
among federations will be determined by multiplying population times area times percentage of 
local support. The population figure shall be the population of the area served by the federation as 
of the latest published federal census. The area figure shall be the number of square miles of the 
area served by the federation. The local support figure shall be the average of the percentage of the 
maximum allowable mill levy for public library services of each governmental unit participating in 
the federation actually expended for public library purposes by each such governmental unit from 
edl sources. In computing the percentage of local support the amount actually expended for public 
library services shall not include building construction and remodeling funds, but it shall include 
federal or state revenue sharing monies, all purpose levies, library fund levies, local general fund 
monies, in-kind services, or any other local public monies expended for public library services. In 
computing the percentage of local support for a federation no participating governmental unit 



Page Eleven 



shall be included at more than one hundred percent (100%) of local support, and in computing the 
basic grant no federation as a whole shall be included at more than one hundred percent (100%) of 
local support. 

Applications for basic grants for the following fiscal year must be submitted to the Montana 
state library commission by April 30 preceding the fiscal year. 

(2) Establishment grants may be applied for any time during the biennium until January 1 of 
the last year of the biennium. Any funds not granted by January 1 of the last year of the biennium 
will be allocated to special project grants and distributed by the Montana state library com- 
mission according to the special project grant plans approved. 

(3) Applications and plans for special project grants shall be submitted no later than March 1 
of the second year of the biennium. Any moneys not granted by April 1 of the second year of the 
bienniimi will be allocated to the basic grant fund and distributed according to the basic grant 
formula for the following fiscal year. 

Section 6. Section 84-3804, R.C.M. 1947, is amended to read as follows: 

"84-3804. Increase of state tax levy— support units of university— library systems. (1) Upon 
the approval of the electors of this state, to be determined by their vote at the general election to 
be held in November of 1968, the legislative assembly shall levy a property tax of not more than 
six (6) mills on the taxable value of all real and personal property each year for ten (10) years 
beginning with the year 1969. All revenue from this property tax levy shall be appropriated for the 
support, maintenance, and improvement of the Montana university system. 

[2] Upon approval of the electors of this state to be determined by their vote at the general 
election to be held in November, 1976, the legislature shall levy a property tax of not more than 
one [1] mill on the taxable value of all real and personal property each year for ten [10] years 
beginning with the year 1977. All revenue from this property tax levy shall be appropriated to the 
state library commission for the support of public library federations." 



The manner in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election, 
November 2, 1976, is as follows: 



REFERENDUM NO. 70 

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement 

Referendum No. 70 was introduced as House Bill No. 55 in the regular session of the 44th 
Legislature of the State of Montana. H. B. 55 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 74 
for and 21 against with 5 members excused. The Senate vote was 45 to 4 in favor of the bill with 1 
member excused. House Bill No. 55 was approved by the Governor on April 14, 1975. 



Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The 1975 Legislature passed a bill providing for a progrtun to develop and strengthen local 
public libraries in Montana. The Legislature further provided that the funding for this program 
would be put to a popular vote at this election. The proposed program would be administered by 
the Montana library commission, which would distribute the funds through public library 
federations. The funds involved would be derived from a one ( 1 ) mill levy on all taxable property in 
the state for the next ten ( 10) years, if the levy is approved by the electorate at this election. 



Page Twelve 



AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A POPULAR VOTE ON THE QUESTION OF STATE FUN- 
DING TO PUBLIC LIBRARY FEDERATIONS WITH A ONE (1) MILL LEVY ON ALL 
TAXABLE PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE STATE LIBRARY COMMISSION TO 
DISTRIBUTE GRANTS TO PUBLIC LIBRARY FEDERATIONS; DEFINING GRANT 
PROGRAMS; AMENDING SECTION 84-3804, R.C.M. 1947. 



For appropriating a one ( 1 ) mill levy to fund public library federations. 



Agjiinst appropriating a one (1 ) mill levy to fund public library federations. 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

Referendum 70, HB 55, passed by the 1975 Montana Legislature, provides the following: 

State funding to public Ubreuy federations with not more than a one-mill levy on all taxable 
property; authorizing Montana State Library Commission to distribute grants to public library 
federations. 

Provision for State Library Commission to receive and allocate money to federation 
headquarters for three grant programs: 

Basic grants to improve pubUc library services within federation and enable public libraries 
within the federation to achieve and maintain Montana pubhc library standards. 

Establishment grants to improve basic library service to government units participating in 
library federations for the first time. Local goverrmiental unit must contract with headquarters 
library for federation services. 

Special project grants to implement services not provided for in basic grants or to provide 
construction or remodeling funds. Remodeling or construction grants must be matched by local 
funds. 

Commission shall allocate state funding appropriations among the three grant programs as 
follows: 60 percent of each annual appropriation to basic grant program, 30 percent of each annud 
appropriation to estabUshment grant progr£mi, and 10 percent of each annual appropriation to 
special grant program. 

The formula for distribution of grants will be determined by multiplying population times area, 
times percentage of local support. 

There will be a federation advisory board composed of representatives of each pairticipating 
entity to recommend policy, operation of federations and expenditure of funds. 

State funding would: 

Promote equalized finemcial supi>ort for Ubrary services in all areas of the state through public 
library federations; 

Provide encouragement to local libraries to share resources by joining library federations; 



Page Thirteen 

Provide the necessary funds to create an adequate pool of library resources, books, and 
materials available to users of every library participating in a federation; 

Provide improved interlibrary loan and reference services to users of every library par- 
ticipating in a federation. 

State funding would be available to library federations because the 1974 Montana Legislature 
authorized library federations, stating: "It is the policy of the legislature to encourage the most 
efficient delivery of library services to the people of Montana. To that end, the state should be 
divided into regions within which libraries desiring to participate in the distribution of such state - 
funding to libraries as may be available from time to time shall organize into library federations to 
pool resources and information and avoid duplication of effort." 

The federation provides resources for improved services but the local library retains it 
autonomy, initiative and pride of local control and ownership. 

Montana is one of 12 states that does not provide state funding for local public libraries 

S/ Jack Gunderson 
Margaret S. Warden 
William P. Conklin 

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

I. Monopoly of funds 
Referendvmi No. 70 proposes a distribution of up to a million and a half dollars a year to libraries 
according to several hazy and complicated formulas. One provision which is not hazy, however, is 
the hierarchy of controls which would be imposed on traditionally independent libraries. The state 
library commission would control the flow of all funds to about six federation headquarters 
libraries across the state, and the state commission can change the headquarters designation from 
one library to another whenever it wishes. The headquarters library then channels its share of the 
money to the other libraries in its region as it sees fit to fund their requests. The potential for 
arbitrary exercises of power exists on two levels. 

II. Libraries coerced into federations 

The proposal would coerce individual libraries into joining regional library federations. The 
existing federations have not attracted every library or county into their organizations. But a 
library which has chosen not to join a federation yet would be pressured to participate since the 
alternative would mean a flow of property tax revenue out of its community with nothing received 
in return. 

III. Bureaucratic exptmsion 

Federations could become regional bureaucracies under the proposal, with staffs busily regulating 
the librarians who actually serve the people. The need for another level of bureaucracy between the 
state level and the local government level is not apparent; neither is the way the growth ten- 
dencies of such bureaucracies could be controlled. In fact, federation growth is inevitable since 
every increase in total taxable valuation will automatically cause more dollars to flow into this 
program. 

IV. No legislative or local review 

For the next 10 years, this program would roll on down the tracks, with neither the legislature nor 
the elected local governments able to affect its course. Public agencies generally must justify their 
past spending and proposed budgets every other year if they come to the legislature for state 
money, or every year if they come to local governments for a share of the mill levy. The library 
federations would be exempted from this periodic review and control, and no compelling reason 
has been shown for such an exemption. 

8/ Elmer Flynn 
J. D. Lynch 
Widlace W. Mercer 



Page Fourteen 



ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

Federation Advisory Boards Have No Powers 

The proponents state that each federation of Ubraries has an advisory board of representatives 
from each participating Ubrary or local government, which can recommend on pohcies and grants. 
To recommend is not to have the final say; this power is vested in the one library designated as the 
federation headquarters. Our fear of the possible arbitrary use of power at the headquarters level 
remsdns. 

Local Autonomy Would Be A Hollow Shell 

The proponents argue that the local library retains its autonomy, initiative, and pride of local 
control and ownership. The whole history of financial aid from a higher level of government to a 
lower one shows that control of the purse strings leads to control of the entire apparatus. The local 
Ubrary may retain the appearance of independence, but effective control will pass to the 
headquarters. 

Issue Is Not Whether But How To Help Libraries 

The proponents close by saying Montana is one of 12 states which do not provide state 
assistance for local Ubraries. There are surely other ways to aid Ubraries besides going through 
all powerful federations, however. A vote against Referendum 70 does not have to be a rejection of 
the concept of state aid, with proper safeguards and limitations. The 1977 legislature can rework 
the laws governing powers of the federations and the state Ubrary commission and develop a 
workable program for state aid. 

S/Ehner Flynn 
J. D. Lynch 
WaUace W. "WaUy" Mercer 

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

Library federations are the result of voluntary contracts negotiated between local entities and 
a headquarters library. During the past 20 years the number of counties sharing Ubrary resources 
through federations has risen from 2 to 24. This result has been produced by direct support by the 
state library commission to aU Ubraries involved, not just headquarters Ubraries, using federal tax 
funds for books, bookmobUes, wages and buildings. State funding wiU only carry on that program. 
No local Ubrary has ever felt coerced to join a federation, though tax funds always provided the 
incentive. If the state library commission and headquarters libraries had been arbitrary with those 
funds, no such progress would have occurred. To suggest that they wUl now be arbitrary is a 
transparent attempt to discredit a beneficial program. 

The opposition statement is misleading and lacks credibiUty because it contains serious factual 
errors. The true facts foUow: 

Library boards will retain and control local revenues and Ubraries; 

Change of headquarters Ubraries can be prevented if unreasonable or arbitrary; 

Federation advisory boards, required by law, insure that headquarters Ubraries don't dictate 
federation grant applications; 

Federations are not empowered by law to regulate any Ubrary or Ubrarian; 

Federations are not empowered by law to hire staff - only local Ubrary boards can; therefore, 
another level of bureaucracy is impossible and untrue; 



Page Fifteen 



The budget and program will be subject to review at each legislative session because under 
Referendum 70 the legislature has discretion to levy less than one mill, if not justified. 

S/ Jack Gunderson 
Margaret S. Warden 
William P. Conklin 



INITIATIVE NO. 71 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This Act would amend the Montana Major Facilities Siting Act by banning nuclear power 
plants in Montana until Congress removes federal liability limits. If this action takes place then 
further conditions must be met, or the ban of nuclear facilities would remain in effect. Such 
conditions include the corhprehensive testing of substantially similar physical nuclear systems in 
actual operation and technical findings by the Legislature and the Board of Natural Resources 
that there is no reasonable chance of radioactive materials being released into the environment 
because of imperfect storage, earthquakes, acts of God, sabotage, act of war, theft, etc. 



The following is a copy of the title and text of the proposed Initiative as it appears in the 
Official files of the Secretary of State: 

AN ACT TO REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF ANY NUCLEAR FACILITY 
LICENSED UNDER THE MONTANA MAJOR FACILITY SITING ACT; DEFINING 
TERMS; REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CER- 
TIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT A NUCLEAR FACILITY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION 
OF EVACUATION PLANS; AMENDING SECTION 70-804, REVISED CODES OF MON- 
TANA 1947. 

Be it enacted by the people of the state of Montana: 

Section 1. There is a new section in the Montana Major Facility Siting Act, to be numbered 
70-802.1, which reads as follows: 

Findings as to nuclear safety. The people find and declare that substantial pubhc concern 
exists concerning the effect of nuclear fission power plants and nuclear facilities on public health, 
safety, and welfare, including but not limited to, questions regarding: 

(a) The reliability of the performance of the plants and related consequences in the areas of 
security, economics, health, safety and welfare; 

(b) The reliability of the emergency safety systems for the plants and facilities; 

(c) The security of the plants and facilities against the release of potentially harmful sub- 
stances into the environment due to damage from accidents, earthquakes or other acts of God, 
theft, sabotage, and other events; 

(d) The security of the systems of transportation, reprocessing and disposal or storage of fuel 
and wastes of the plants or facilities from theft, sabotage, accident, acts of God, or other events; 

(e) The state of knowledge regarding ways to safely store or adequately dispose of the 
radioactive and chemically toxic waste products from the plants, related facilities and any other 
nuclear facilities; 

(f ) The effect of thermal emissions from the plants or facilities; and 

(g) The propriety of the creation by one generation of potentially catastrophic hazards or 
burdens for future generations, including, but not limited to the radioactive and chemically toxic 
wastes from nuclear fission power plants and other nuclear facihties. 



Page Sixteen 

Section 2. There is a new section in the Montana Major Facility Siting Act, to be numbered 
70-803.1, which reads as follows: 

( 1 ) Definition of nuclear facility — A nuclear facility is as defined m section 70-803, subsections 
(3) (a) (i) (when powered by nuclear fission) and (3) (a) (iv), and shall also include for the purposes 
of this chapter any plant or place which deals in any way with the storage, transportation, 
disposal, use, enrichment or reprocessing of radioactive materials. 

(2) "Facility" as defined in section 70-803, is further defined to include any plant or place 
which is used for storage or disposal of radioactive wastes or fuels. 

(3 ) Nuclear Facility as defined does not include ( 1 ) any small scale nuclear fission reactor used 
for educational purposes which does not produce commercial electrical energy, and (2) any nuclear 
materials used for materials— testing purposes, medical purposes, or educational purposes in a 
public or private school system, provided that these educational nuclefu" materials are not con- 
nected in any way with the nuclear energy fuel and waste cycle. 

Section 3. Section 70-804 of the Montana Major FaciUty Siting Act is amended, by adding the 
nnderhned matter [Italics used in this printing] , to read as follows: 

70-804. Certificate from board required prior to construction of facility— exemptions— 
approval by legislature of certificate for nuclear facility. 

( 1 ) A person may not commence to construct a facUity in the state without first applying for 
emd obtaining a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need issued with respect to 
the facility by the board. A facility, with respect to which a certificate is issued, may not thereafter 
be constructed, operated or maintained except in conformity with the certificate and any terms, 
conditions and modification contained therein. A certificate may only be issued pursuant to this 
chapter. 

(2) A certificate may be transferred, subject to the approval of the department, to a person 
who agrees to comply with the terms, conditions and modifications contained therein. 

(3) This chapter does not apply to any aspect of a facihty over which an agency of the federal 
government has exclusive jurisdiction, but applies to any unpreempted aspect of a facility over 
which an agency of the federal government has partial jurisdiction. 

(4) The Board may adopt reasonable rules establishing exemptions from this chapter for the 
relocation, reconstruction, or upgrading of a facility that would otherwise be covered by this 
chapter and that is unlikely to have a significant environmental impact by reason of length, size, 
location, available space or right of way, or construction methods. 

(5) A certificate is not required under this chapter for a facility under diligent on-site physical 
construction or in operation on January 1, 1973. 

(6) If the board decides to issue a certificate to a nuclear facility, the board shall report such 
recommendation to the legislature and may not issue the certificate until the legislature by joint 
resolution approves such action. 

Section 4. There is a new section in the Montana Major FaciUty Siting Act, to be numbered 
70-8.10.1, which reads as follows: 

Additional Requirements for issuance of a certificate for the siting of a Nuclear Facility. 

The board may not issue a certificate to construct a nuclear facility unless it finds that: 

(a) Any Umits imposed by the federal government on the liability of the owners and operators 
and/or manufacturers, sellers, or distributors of such plants or facihties for damage resulting from 
the existence or operation of the plants or facilities, have been removed and full compensation, 
either by law or by waiver, is assured, for personal injury, property damage or economic loss 
resulting from escape or diversion of radioactivity, radioactive materials, or chemically toxic 
materials resulting from the preparation, transportation, reprocessing, and storage or disposal of 
such materials associated with such plants or facilities; 

(b) The effectiveness of all safety systems, including but not limited to the emergency core 
coohng system of such plants have been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the board, by 



Page Seventeen 

comprehensive testing of substantially similar physical systems in actual operation; and 
(c) The fuels, radioactive materials, radioactive wastes, and chemically toxic wastes of such 
plants and facihties can be stored, contained, or disposed of, with no reasonable chance, as 
determined by the board, of intentional or unintentional escape or diversion of such fuels, wastes, 
or radioactivity, into the natural environment in excess of standards set by proper authorities, due 
to imperfect storage technologies, earthquakes or other acts of God, theft, sabotage, acts of war, 
governmental or social instabilities, or whatever other causes the board may deem to be reasona- 
bly possible, at any time during which such fuel and/or waste is radioactive or chemically toxic. 

Section 5. There is a new section in the Montana Major Facihty Siting Act, to be numbered 
70-820.1, which reads as follows: 

After any certificate for a nuclear facility is issued the governor shall annually publish and set 
procedures for annual review of evacuation and emergency medical aid plans. 

(a) The governor shall annually publish, publicize, and release to the news media and to the 
appropriate officials of affected communities, in a manner designed to inform residents of the 
affected communities, the entire evacuation plans specified in the licensing of each certified 
nuclear fission power plant or nuclear facihty affecting this state. Copies of the plans shall be made 
available to the public upon request, at no more than the costs of reproduction. 

(b) The governor shall estabUsh procedures for annual review by state and local officials of 
established evacuation and emergency medical aid plans, with regard for, but not limited to such 
factors as the adequacy of such plans, changes in traffic patterns, population densities, schools, 
hospitals industrial developments, and other factors as requested by locally elected represen- 
tatives. 

Section 6. If any provision of this amendatory act, or its application to any person is held 
invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or cir- 
cumstances, is not affected. 



The manner in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election, 
November 2, 1976, is as follows: 



PROPOSED PETITION FOR INITIATIVE 

INITIATIVE NO. 71 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This Act would amend the Montana Major Facilities Siting Act by banning nuclear power 
plants in Montana untU Congress removes federal liability limits. If this action takes place then 
further conditions must be met, or the ban of nuclear facilities would remain in effect. Such 
conditions include the comprehensive testing of substantially similar physical nuclear systems in 
actual operation and technical findings by the Legislature and the Board of Natural Resources 
that there is no reasonable chance of radioactive materials being released into the environment 
because of imperfect storage, earthquakes, acts of God, sabotage, act of war, theft, etc. 



AN ACT TO REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF ANY NUCLEAR FACILITY 
LICENSED UNDER THE MONTANA MAJOR FACILITY SITING ACT; DEFINING 
TERMS; REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CER- 
TIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT A NUCLEAR FACILITY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION 
OF EVACUATION PLANS; AMENDING SECTION 70-804, REVISED CODES OF MON- 
TANA 1947. 



D 



Page Eighteen 



For an act to ban nuclear power in Montana until the conditions specified in this 
measure are met. 

Against an act to ban nuclear power in Montana until the conditions specified in this 
measure are met. 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

A YES vote on ballot issue # 7 1 is a vote in favor of public psu^ticipation in decisions affecting 
the siting of nuclear electricity power plants in Montana. Ballot issue #71 is an amendment to the 
Major Facilities Siting Act. Under existing law public hearings would be held on any proposed 
nuclear power plant. However, existing law does not set safety standards for final decision- 
making. Ballot issue #71 will establish the following standards to be met in the construction of 
any nuclear power generating facility: 

1 ) Limits on insured liability, currently imposed by the federal government, must be removed. 
Full compensation for personal injury, property damage or economic loss resulting from a nuclear 
accident, such as escape of radioactivity or chemically poisonous material, must be provided. 

Presently, there is a federally imposed limit on damage claims. As well, 80% of all claims up to 
the limit must be paid by our own teix dollars. Lifting this liability limit and requiring full in- 
surance coverage will bring nuclear power within the rules of our free market economy and away 
from federed subsidy. 

2 ) Safety systems must be demonstrated to work properly in actual operation. For example, 
an emergency core cooling system should be demonstrated under simulated conditions equalling 
the conditions that can be anticipated with the type of nuclear power plant proposed for Montana. 

3) The waste and by-products of the nuclear facility must be stored or disposed of properly in 
accordance with standards set by responsible authorities, such as the Department of Health, with 
no reasonable chance of diversion or escape, so long as the material is radioactive or chemically 
toxic. 

4) Each year the governor's office shall be responsible for assuring the publication of the 
evacuation plans that must be prepared under federal law for such a nuclear power plant. These 
evacuation plans would then be published in newspapers of circulation in the impact areas. 
Evacuation procedures must be coordinated with local officials. 

The above safety considerations will be reviewed by the Board of Natural Resources and their 
decision referred to the State Legislature for approval. Should ballot issue #71 pass, these safety 
standards will serve the energy industry by clarifying the proper steps to be taken. As there are no 
nuclear power plants in operation or under construction in Montana, the energy industry will have 
ample advance notice of the requirements. No existing jobs will be affected. The number of future 
jobs available may increase in order to assure compliance during construction, should any utility 
desire to build a nuclear facihty in Montana. In the event that the safety standards cannot be met, 
the apphcant utility is encouraged to seek solutions other than nuclear powered electricity 
generation. 

Montanans for Safe Power support a YES vote on ballot issue #71. 

MONTANANS FOR SAFE POWER 
S/ Edward M. Dobson 
Co-chairperson 



Page Nineteen 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

1. Initiative No. 71 patterned closely after a California initiative that was rejected by a 2 to 1 
vote last spring, purports to protect the safety and welfare of Montana citizens from any accidents 
and ill effects of nuclear power plants that might be proposed. But in actuality the passage of the 
initiative would result in a ban of nucleeir power generation in the state: 

The Board of Natural Resources, under provisions of the initiative, could not certify a nuclear 
facility unless all limitations on the liability of operators, manufacturers, or distributors for injury 
or damages are removed. The present maximum coverage under the Price-Anderson Act is $560 
million, which will increase to over one billion dollars as additional nuclear facilities become 
operational. Since no catastrophe, however unlikely, is ever completely insurable, there is no 
likelihood that Congress, for the benefit of one state, will remove £dl limitations. 

Under the initiative, the Board would have to be satisfied that the resulting radioactive wastes 
wherever they are stored by the federal government, would be safe for all time from a hst of events 
that include acts of God, acts of war, earthqu&ke, governmental or social instability. Since no 
board can be expected to foresee such occurrences in perpetuity, it could not reasonably commit 
itself to a certification that would require such omniscience. 

A nuclear power plant, to be certified in Montana under the initiative, would require that in 
addition to the exhaustive examination of all components by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
the Board would have to be satisfied that they had all been proven safe "in actual operation". This 
forces the Board to become expert enough in nuclear engineering as to be able to evaluate the 
testing program of the Energy Research and Development Agency which analyzes all safety 
systems and components by mathematical and model simulation as well as full-scale testing. 

2. If the objective were actually safety and well-being instead of the prohibition of nuclear 
power in the state, the legislature through the Utility Siting Act followed by the Major Facilities 
Siting Act has already provided ample protection by requiring nuclear or any other power plants 
to be exhaustively analyzed for aU possible impacts on the human, animal, and vegetative en- 
vironment. To require in addition a vote of the legislature adds nothing to the safety of such 
plants— unless it can be presumed that the legislature will be more competent to evaluate their 
reliability than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Board of Natural Resources, and the 
agencies charged with a two-year environmental study. 

3. The state now has ample resources for foreseeable future power needs, and no nuclear power 
plants have been seriously proposed or planned by any combination of agencies capable of 
financing such a plant. But it would show little foresight at this time to deny the state the option 
of choosing one promising alternative for power generation if and when the need for such power 
arises. 

S/ C. R. Draper 

J. C. Weingartner 
Vincent J. Bosh 
Rodney K. Hanson 
Riley W. Childers 

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

The argument supporting this initiative states that decisions of the Board of Natural 
Resources concerning nuclear power plants will be "referred to the State Legislature for ap- 
proval." But the decision to certify any major plant is an administrative function, already 
delegated to that Board, and further involvement by the Legislature in that decision-making 
process violates the principle of the separation of powers in our state government. SingUng out one 
industry for legislative approval makes it obvious this initiative is aimed at denying the state 
nuclear power as an alternative. 



Page Twenty 



The claim that this initiative allows for more or better public participation is simply not true. 
No additional public hearings or public inputs are provided for by the initiative. It merely inserts 
the Legislature into the process; and with biennial legislative sessions, the time lag between Board 
approval of a nuclear plant and legislative action could cause serious delays if the need for energy 
becomes critical. 

The claim is made that no existing jobs would be affected by passage of this initiative designed 
to deny Montana the choice of nuclear power; and it is suggested vaguely that somehow there may 
be more jobs created because of more stringent regulations. The fact of the matter is that this bill 
would prohibit one kind of energy development— at a time when many of the 8 percent jobless 
workers in Montana see energy development and the jobs that accompsmy it as the only way out of 
a desperate econmic situation. 

S/ C. R. Draper 
J. C. Weingartner 
Rodney K. Hanson 
Vincent J. Bosh 
Riley W. Childers 

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

By calling Initiative 71 a "ban" on nuclear electricity plants, opponents admit they cannot 
meet basic safety standards. Who would move to Livingston if Allenspur Dam were built but 
could not reasonably be guaranteed against breaking? Often we blame human mistakes on "acts of 
God." There is no room for "acts of God" with nuclear power. 

Too often appointed boards ignore recommendations of their departments and favor special 
interests. It will be much harder for big corporations to influence 150 legislators than seven 
political appointees. Let the legislators, who must face us across the ballot box, vote. 

Suppose they vote "no." Is that the end of economic progress? No, a Isirge investment in 
energy conservation will make available twice as much "new" energy as will an equal investment 
in new power plants, and create more jobs. Sweden, having a higher average income per person 
than the United States, uses only half as much energy per person. Sweden saves energy in many 
ways, including hsu-nessing one-third of the waste heat from power plants for commercial uses. We 
build more power plants farther from population centers (Colstrip, for example) and continue to 
harness none. Actually, we waste half of all energy we produce. 

Recently, Seattle discarded plans to help build two nuclear power plants because they are too 
expensive. Seattle plans to make more low-cost power available to new users through con- 
servation, the cheapest method . . . even cheaper than coal. 

For safety, jobs, low utility rates, vote YES on 71. 

MONTANANS FOR SAFE POWER 
S/ Edward M. Dobson 
Co-chairperson 



INITIATIVE NO. 72 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The title of this proposed act is the "state funded homestead tax relief act". Under the act, the 
governor would request the legislature to appropriate funds to pay the taxes on the first $5,000 of 
the appraised value of each owner-occupied home. The homeowners tax liability would remain the 
same, with the state paying a portion of the tax. Voter approval of this act will not obligate the 
legislature to appropriate funds for this purpose. 



Page TSventy-one 



The following is a copy of the title and text of the proposed Initiative as it appears in the 
Official files of the Secretary of State: 

AN ACT TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED 
HOMESTEADS. 

Be it enacted by the people of Montana: 

Section 1. Short Title. This act shall be known as and may be referred to as the "state funded 
homestead tax relief act". 

Section 2. Definitions: As used in this act unless the context requires otherwise (1) 
"Homestead" means a dwelling, or mobile home as defined in section 84-6601, R.C.M. 1947, 
together with adjacent land, sufficient and necessary for the msdntenance of the property used as 
the principal place of abode of the owner when the property is owned by the occupant or under 
valid contract establishing eauity or ownership by the occupant. 

(2) "Total taxable value" means the taxable value of a homestead. 

(3) "State share taxable value" means a taxable value equivalent to five thousand dollars 
($5,000) of the appraised value of a homestead or the totfd taxable value of a homestead, whichever 
amount is lesser. 

(4) "State supported mill levies" means all property tax levies which apply to habitable 
property except voted elementary and secondary school levies, the university 6 miU levy, voted 
levies for the retirement of bonded indebtedness and levies for special improvement districts or 
improvement district reserve funds which are not county wide or which are supported by a fee or 
charge rather than em ad valorem tax levy. 

(5) "State share tax liability" means the state share taxable value for each homestead in each 
taxing jurisdiction times the state supported mill levies in that taxing jurisdiction. 

(6) "Homestead owner's taxable value" means the total taxable value of the homestead less 
the state share taxable value. 

Section 3. Homestead owner's tax liability. The tax liability of a homestead owner shall be 
computed by deducting the state share tax liability from the tax Uability on the total taxable 
value. Each tax statement sent to the person in whose name the property is assessed shall set 
forth separately the total tax due, the state share tax liability and the homestead owner's tax 
liability and shall label the amovmts as such. 

Section 4. Duties of the department of revenue. (1) The department of revenue shall compute 
the state share tax Uability according to this act and shall certify this amount by county. 

(2) The department of revenue may adopt rules necessary for the administration of this act. 

Section 5. Remission of state share to counties. (1) The governor shall include in the budget 
submitted to the legislature, a provision for funds to be made available to the depjirtment of 
revenue sufficient to remit the state share tax liabihty to each county. 

(2) To the extent funds are provided by the legislature, the department of revenue shall remit 
the state share tax liability to the county treasurer of each county in two equal payments; the first 
no later than November 30 of each year and the second no later than the following May 31. 

Section 6. Duties of the county treasurer. The county treasurer shall credit each expenditure 
account with the amount received from the department of revenue in accordance with the mill levy 
for that account no later than December 31 for the first payment and June 30 for the second 
payment. 

Section 7. Effective date. This act shall become effective July 1, 1977. 

FORM OF BALLOT 

When this initiative is submitted to the qualified electors of Montana, there shall be printed on 
the ballot the full title and text of the initiative measure and the following words: 



Page Twenty-two 



For reduction of owner's property tax liability on owner-occupied residential property. 



Against reduction of owner's property tax liability on owner-occupied residential 
property." 



The manner in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election, 
November 2, 1976, is as follows: 



PROPOSED PETITION FOR INITIATIVE 

INITIATIVE NO. 72 

X Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The title of this proposed act is the "state funded homestead tax relief act". Under the act, the 
governor would request the legislature to appropriate funds to pay the taxes on the first $5,000 of 
the appraised value of each owner-occupied home. The homeowners tax Uability would remain the 
same, with the state paying a portion of the tax. Voter approval of this act will not obUgate the 
legislature to appropriate funds for this purpose. 



AN ACT TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED 
HOMESTEADS. 

Be it enacted by the people of Montana: 

Section 1. Short Title. This act shall be known as and may be referred to as the "state funded 
homestead tax reUef act". 

Section 2. Definitions: As used in this act unless the context requires otherwise (1) 
"Homestead" means a dwelUng, or mobile home as defined in section 84-6601. R.C.M. 1947, 
together with adjacent land, sufficient and necessary for the maintenance of the property used as 
the principal place of abode of the owner when the property is owned by the occupant or under 
valid contract establishing equity or ownership by the occupant. 

(2) "Total taxable value" means the taxable value of a homestead. 

(3) "State share taxable value" means a taxable value equivalent to five thousand dollars 
($5,000) of the appraised value of a homestead or the total taxable value of a homestead, whichever 
amount is lesser. 

(4) "State supported mill levies" means all property tax levies which apply to habitable 
property except voted elementary and secondary school levies, the university 6 mill levy, voted 
levies for the retirement of bonded indebtedness and levies for special improvement districts or 
improvement district reserve funds which are not county wide or which are supported by a fee or 
charge rather than an ad valorem tax levy. 

(5) "State share tax liability" means the state sheire taxable value for each homestead in each 
taxing jurisdiction times the state supported mill levies in that taxing jurisdiction. 

(6) "Homestead owner's taxable value" means the total taxable value of the homestead less 
the state share tfixable value. 

Section 3. Homestead owner's tax Uability. The tax liability of a homestead owner shall be 
computed by deducting the state share tax Uability from the tax liabiUty on the total taxable value. 
Each tax statement sent to the person in whose name the property is assessed shall set forth 



Page Twenty-three 

separately the total tax due, the state share tax liability and the homestead owner's tax liability 
and shall label the amounts as such. 

Section 4. Duties of the department of revenue. (1 ) The department of revenue shall compute 
the state share tax Uabihty according to this act and shall certify this amount by county. 

(2) The department of revenue may adopt rules necessary for the administration of this act. 

Section 5. Remission of state share to counties. (1) The governor shall include in the budget 
submitted to the legislature, a provision for funds to be made available to the department of 
revenue sufficient to remit the state share tax liability to each county. 

(2) To the extent funds are provided by the legislature, the department of revenue shall remit 
the state share tax liability to the county treasurer of each county in two equal payments; the first 
no later than November 30 of each yesir and the second no later than the following May 31. 

Section 6. Duties of the county treasurer. The county treasurer shall credit each expenditure 
account with the amount received from the department of revenue in accordance with the mill levy 
for that account no later than December 31 for the first payment and June 30 for the second 
payment. 

Section 7. Effective date. This act shall become effective July 1, 1977. 

For reduction of owner's property tax liability on owner-occupied residential property. 
Against reduction of owner's property tax liability on owner-occupied residential property. 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

The Homeowners Property Tax Relief Initiative will, if approved by the voters, reduce the 
property taxes on each owner-occupied home in Montana by an average of $110 per year. Non- 
voted mill levies will not be applied to the first $5,000 appraised value of each owner-occupied 
home. The amount of property tax relief will vary somewhat throughout the state because non- 
voted mill levies are not uniform among counties. However, the average statewide reduction will 
be $110. A person will receive property tax relief only on the home they own and occupy. 

There will be no loss of revenue to the counties as they will be reimbursed from the state 
general fund which currently has a surplus of approximately $50 milUon. The Governor's budget 
will request $14,000,000 a year from the 1977 Legislature to fund the proposal for the next bien- 
nium. All property tax statements on owner-occupied homes issued by the county assessor's after 
July 1, 1977 will reflect the $110 reduction in tax liability. 

The property tax is the most regressive tax next to the sales tax. It is not based on an in- 
dividual's ability to pay as is the case with income taxes. For example, when a person's income 
drops, so does his income tax, however, his property taxes will stay the same or may even increase. 
Thus, people on fixed incomes, senior citizens, working men and women and the temporarily 
unemployed bear an increasingly heavy burden when property taxes increase as they have done in 
recent years. Many people are literally being forced from their homes because they can no longer 
afford to pay their property taxes. 

The Homeowners Property Tax Relief Initiative will provide relief to those citizens and ah 
other people owning and living in their own home. Other taxes will not increase if the proposal is 
enacted because of the $50 million state general fund surplus, derived from the coal tax, in- 
vestment of state funds and audits of out-of-state corporations. With proper fiscal management, 
the surplus will be maintained into the 1980's, providing a continuing source of funds to finance 
the Homeowners Property Tax Relief Initiative. Further, property tax relief will be distributed 
equitably because people owning expensive homes will receive the same dollar reduction in their 
property taxes as those owning less expensive homes. 

CITIZENS FOR PROPERTY TAX RELIEF 
S/ Emily Melton 

Deputy Campaign Treasurer 



Page Twenty-four 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

The "act to provide property tax relief for owner-occupied homesteads" should be voted down 
by the electors for a number of reasons. 

1. This is not a tax reduction. The proposed rebates by the Montana Legislature would have to 
come from the State's primary source of revenue— the income tax. Although such rebates could 
come from the general fund surplus for a short period of time, thereafter they would have to come 
from some other source such as the income tax. 

2. One third of Montana's households live in rented property. These people do not receive any 
tax rebates in spite of the fact that they pay property taxes indirectly as part of their rents. They 
would also be required to contribute, through the income tax, to the fund from which the rebates 
are paid. Renters would be doubly taxed. 

3. Property tax reUef is now available to homeowners who are senior citizens with relatively 
low incomes. This approach could be broadened without including the more affluent. 

4. Initiative No. 72 could open up demands for property tax rebates from other major sources 
of property tax income. For instance, only one-fifth of all property taxes come from real estate and 
improvements in cities and towns. Property taxes on farm lands and improvements, livestock and 
machinery account for one-fourth of all property tax income. The property taxes paid on livestock 
alone have been equal to one-half of the total property taxes paid on real estate and improvements 
in cities and towns. This is the area that needs tax reform. 

Montana badly needs a rational coherent system of property taxation. Initiative No. 72 is a 
piecemeal effort at reform which has built-in inequities and is not based on an individual's ability 
to pay. The mandate for tax reform should be placed on the Legislature. It can hold hearings, 
examine all aspects of the taxation problem and adopt a fair and equitable reform of the property 
tax system. A "No" vote on Initiative No. 72 will give our elected representatives a chance to do 
this. 

S/ Vem Sletten 
Jack Atkins 
Linda Skaar 
John R. Kline 
R. E. Svare 



ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

The "Homeowners Property Tslx Relief Initiative" will not, by itself, reduce property taxes on 
each owner-occupied home. Initiative No. 72 would not place an affirmative duty on the 
Legislature to fund this proposal. The Act merely provides "(t)o the extent funds are provided by 
the legislature" property tax reUef will be forthcoming. If the Legislature refused to appropriate 
funds for this purpose, neither the Governor nor the taxpayers would have any legal recourse. 

Proponents of Initiative No. 72 have stated that the Governor will request the Legislature to 
appropriate $14,000,000 per year over the next biennium to fund this measure. Where will this 
$14,000,000 per year come from? It will come from the taxpayers, all taxpayers, regardless of 
whether or not they are homeowners. Initiative No. 72 proposes to refund our tax dollars to a 
select minority; those persons who own and occupy "homesteads" even though all tax paying 
Montanans contributed to the State's general fund and its current surplus. 

Due to ambiguities contained in the language of Initiative No. 72 there is no guarantee that the 
State's current $50 million dollar general fund surplus will survive even one year of payments. It is 
conceivable that a homeowner whose "homestead" has an appraised value of $41,670 would not 
pay any property taxes other than voted mill levies and the six mill university levy due to the 
interpretation that could be placed on the term "taxable vsilue". A one-shot gratuity is not an 
equitable form of property tax relief. 

S/ Vem Sletten 
Jack Atkins 
Mr. R. E. Svare 
Ms. Linda Skaar 
John R. Kline 



Page Twenty-five 



ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

For the duration of the general fund surplus, the Homeowners Property Tax Initiative clearly 
will constitute a tax reduction. When the surplus is depleted, the burden will have shifted to other 
taxes levied by the state. State levied taxes such as the income tax, corporation license tax and 
coal tax are far more progressive than property taxes on homes. 

Legislation to provide relief to renters is being prepared for introduction in the 45th Legislative 
Assembly and would, if enacted, become effective at the same time as Initiative 72. A previous 
attempt by the Judge administration to pass renter relief was defeated by the 1974 legislature. 

By not relating the amount of relief provided to the value of the home, the Initiative 
guarantees that relatively less affluent citizens will receive greater benefits from the program. To 
say that middle income people, those on fixed incomes and the temporarily unemployed do not 
deserve relief is at least arbitrary. 

The Initiative is based on the beUef that a person should not be taxed on homes or any other 
necessity of life such as food. This is essentially the same basis for the administration's opposition 
to a sales t£Lx. 

Initiative 72 has been proposed because the legislature has not fulfilled its mandate to reform 
our tax structure. Two previous administration attempts to provide badly needed property tax 
relief were defeated in the Legislature. Initiative 72 is the people's chance to insure that progress is 
finally begun toward a fair and equitable property tax system. 

'^ 

CITIZENS FOR PROPERTY TAX RELIEF 

S/ Emily Melton 

Deputy Campaign Treasurer 



INITIATIVE NO. 73 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This proposed act provides for the recall of any person holding public office, either elected or 
appoint^!. A officer could be recalled for any reason, regardless of a good faith attempt to perform 
his duties. A recall petition for state officers must contain ten percent (10%) of the voters in the 
last state general election; for county officers - fifteen percent (15%); and for city and town officers- 
twenty percent (20%). If the petitition is successful a recall election will be held for the officer 
involved. The act also has provisions for advisory recall and election of United States district 
judges. 



The following is a copy of the title and text of the proposed Initiative as it appers in the Official 
files of the Secretary of State: 

THE MONTANA RECALL AND ADVISORY RECALL ACT 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STA TE OF MONTANA 

Section 1. Short Title. This act shall be known and cited as the Montana Recall And Advisory 
Recall Act. 

Section 2. Officers Subject To Recall. Every person holding a public office of the state or any 
of its political subdivisions either by election or appointment, is subject to recall from such office 
by the qualified electors of the state or political subdivision. Any reason causing the electorate 
dissatisfaction with a public official shall be sufficient groimds for recall, notwithstanding good 
faith attempts to perform the duties of his office. 



Page Twenty-six 

Section 3. Method of Removal Cumulative. The recall is cumulative and additional too, rather 
than a substitute for, other methods for removal of pubUc officers. 

Section 4. Number of Electors Required For Recall Petition. A recall petition shall not name 
more than one officer to be recalled. Recall petitions for elected or appointed state officers shall 
contain the signatures of qualified electors equalling at least ten percent (10%) of the number of 
persons voting at the preceding state general election. Recall petitions for elected or appointed 
county officers shall contain the signatures of qualified electors equalling at least fifteen percent 
( 15%) of the number of persons voting at the preceding county general election. Recall petitions for 
elected or appointed officers of cities, towns, or other political subdivisions of the state shall 
contain the signatures of qualified electors equalling at least twenty percent (20%) of the number 
of persons voting at the preceding general election for the city, town or other political subdivison. 

Section 5. Circulation Of Recall Petitions — Limitations. No recall petition shall be filed 
against an officer until he has held office for two months. 

No recall petition may be filed against an officer for whom a recall election has been held for a 
period of two years during his term of office, unless the state or political subdivision or sub- 
divisions financing such recall election is first re-imbursed for all expenses of the preceding recall 
election. 

Section 6. Filing of Recall Petitions. Recall petitions for elected officers shall be filed with the 
official who is provided by law to accept the declaration of nomination or petition for nomination 
for such office. Recall petitions for appointed state, county or city or town officers shall be filed 
with the secretary of state, county clerk or city or town clerk respectively. Recall petitions for 
appointed officers from other political subdivisions shall be filed with the county clerk if the 
boundaries of the political subdivisions lie wholely within one ( 1 ) county or otherwise with the 
secretary of state. 

Section 7. Form of Recall Petition. The form of the recall petition shall be substantially as 
follows: 

RECALL PETITION 

To the Honorable __, Secretary of State for the State of Montana (or name 

and office of other filing officer). We, the undersigned citizens and electors of the State of Montana 

(or nsime for appropriate political subdivision) respectfully demand that . 

holding the office be recalled for the following reasons, 

to- wit: (Setting out the reasons in not more than 200 words). That a special election therefore be 
called; that we, each for himself, say, I have personally signed this petition; I am a qualified 
elector of the State of Montana (or name of appropriate poUtical subdivision); my residence and 
post office address are correctly written after my name. 

A recall petition shall contain a general statement of not more than two hundred (200) words 
stating the reason for recall. Such a statement is solely for information of the electors and set forth 
any reason causing the dissatisfaction with the public official and may be poUtical rather than 

legal in nature. 

Section 8. Form Of Circulation Sheets. The signatures on each petition shall be placed on 
sheets of paper known as "circulation sheets", substantially fourteen inches long and eight and 
one-half inches wide. Such circulation sheets shall be ruled with a horizontal line one and one-half 
inches from the top thereof. The space above such line shall remain blank and shall be for the 
purpose of binding. The circulation sheet shall be vertically divided into two columns. The first 
column shall be three and one-half inches in width, measured from the left edge of the sheet, and 
shall be for the purpose of containing the signatures. The second column shall encompass the 
remainder of the width of the sheet and shall be the space on which shall be placed the post office 
address of the signers, together with the street number, if the residence of a signer can be so 
designated, and the address of such signer shall be opposite his name on the same line. 

At the top of each sheet, under the one and one-half inch margin, shall be printed the word 
"Warning", under which shall be printed in eight-point type, single leaded, the following: 



Page Twenty-seven 



Warning. 

Any person signing any name other than his own to this petition or signing the same more 
than once for the same measure at one election or who is not, at the time of signing the same, a 
qualified elector of the state, is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) or 
imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding two (2) years, or both such fine and imprisonment. 

The petition, for purposes of circulation, may be divided into sections, each section to contain 
not more than twenty five circulation sheets. No section, however, shall be circulated for 
signatures unless it has attached to the front sheet thereof a certified petition copy. The sponsors 
shall set out in their application for petition copies the number of sections into which each petition 
is to be divided for circulation, and the number of circulation sheets which it is desired that each 
section shall contain, but there need be no uniformity as to the number of circulation sheets 
contained in each section. 

Section 9. Forms Not Mandatory. The forms prescribed in this act are not mandatory, and if 
substantially followed, the petition shall be sufficient, notwithstanding clerical and merely 
technical errors. 

Section 10. Who May Petition— False Signatures — Penalties. Every person who is a qualified 
elector of this state may sign a petition for recall of a state officer. Every person who is a qualified 
elector of a political subdivision of this state may sign a petition for recall of an officer of that 
political subdivision. Any person signing any name other than his own to any petition, or 
knowingly signing his name more than once for the recall, or who is not at the time of the signing 
the same a qualified elector or any officer or person knowingly and wilfully violating any provision 
of this section, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500), or by im- 
prisonment in the state penitentiary not to exceed Two (2 ) years, or by both. 

Section 11. County Clerk To Verify Signatures. The county clerk in each county in which such 
a petition is signed shall compare the signatures of the electors in such county with registration 
signatures on file in such clerk's office, and, if satisfied the signatures are genuine, certify that fact 
to the official with whom the recall petition was filed, as follows: 

State of Montana ) 

: ss. 
County of ) 

To the Honorable . , Secretary of State of the State of Montana (or name 

and title of other officer): 

I, , Clerk in and for County, do hereby certify that I have 

compared the signatures on sheets (specifying number of sheets) of the petition for 

recall attached hereto, with the signatures of the registered voters as they appear upon the 
registration forms, books and records of my office, and from such information as I have been able 

to obtain I beUeve the signatures, numbering , are genuine. As to the remainder 

of the signatures thereon, I beUeve they are not genuine, except that the following names 
( ) do not appear on the registration forms, books and records in my office. 

County Clerk 

(Seal of Office) 



By. 



Deputy Clerk 



Page Twenty-eight 



Every such certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and of the 
qualifications of the registered voters whose signatures are certified, and the secretary of state, or 
other official receiving the recall petition shall consider and count only such signatures as are 
certified; provided, that the secretary of state, or city clerk or town clerk shall consider and county 
(sic) any remaining signatures of the registered voters which prove to be genuine shall be con- 
sidered and counted if they are attested to in the manner and form as provided for initiative and 
referendum petitions. 

The county clerk shall not retain any petition or any part of it for more than fifteen (15) days. 
At the expiration of such period the county clerk shall deliver the same to the person from whom it 
was received with such clerk's certification. 

Section 12. Mandamus For Refusal To File— Injunction. If the secretary of state, county 
clerk, city or town clerk or other filing officitd refuses to accept and file any petition for recall with 
the proper number of signatures of qualified electors, any elector may within ten (10) days after 
such refusal apply to the district court for a writ of mandamus. If it is determined that the petition 
is sufficient, the district court shall order the petition to be filed with a certified copy of the Writ 
attached thereto, as of the date when it was originally offered for filing. On a showing that any 
filed petition is not sufficient, the court may enjoin certification, printing or recall election. 

All such suits or appeals therefrom shall be advanced on the court docket and heard and 
decided by the court as expeditiously as possible. Any aggrieved party may file an appeal within 
ten ( 10) days after any adverse order or decision as provided by law. 

Section 13. Resignation Of Official Proclamation Of Election. If the officer named in the 
petition for recall submits in writing such officer's resignation, it shall be accepted and become 
effective the day it is offered. The vacancy created by such resignation shall be filled as provided 
by law provided that the official named in the petition for recall shall not be appointed to fill such 
vacancy. If the officer named in the petition for recall refuses to resign or does not resign within 
five (5) days after the petition is filed, a special election shall be proclaimed unless the filing is 
within ninety (90) days of a general election, in which case the question shall be placed on the 
general election ballot. The proclamation of special election shall be made by the governor in the 
case of a state officer and by the board or official empowered by law to proclaim special elections 
for the political subdivision in the case of any officer of a political subdivision of the state. 

Section 14. Notification To Officer— Statement of Justification. Upon filing the petition, the 
official with whom it is filed shall immediately give written notice to the officer named in the 
petition. The notice shall state that a recall petition has been filed, shall set forth the reasons 
contained therein and shall notify the officer named in the recall petition that he has the right to 
preptire and have printed on the ballot a statement containing not more than two hundred (200) 
words giving reasons why he should not be recalled. No such statement of justification shall be 
printed on the ballot unless it is delivered to the fihng official within ten (10) days of the date 
notice is given. 

Section 15. NoticeOf A Recall Election Shall Be In The Following Form: 

NOTICE OF RECALL ELECTION 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to law that a recall election will be held on the day 

of , 197 for the purpose of voting upon the recall of 

DATED at , the day of , 197 



Section 16. Form Of Ballot. The ballot at such recall election shall be entitled "Recall Ballot" 
and shall set forth the statement contained in the recall petition stating the reasons for demanding 
the recall of such officer and the officer's statement of reasons why he should not be recalled. 
Following the statements shall be printed the following instructions to the voter. "To vote on the 
recall, mark a cross (X) in the square at the right of yes or no," and immediately thereunder th6 

question "Shall (naming the officer) be recalled", and immediately to the right of 

such question shall be printed the words "yes" and "no" not less than three-sixteenths (3/16) of 
an inch in height, and at the right of each word a square shall be printed on the ballot in which the 
voter may indicate such voter's preference. 



Page Twenty -nine 

Section 17. Officer To Remain In Office Until Results Declared- FUUng Of Vacancy. The 
officer named in the recall petition for recall shall continue in office until the results of the special 
election are officially declared. If a majority of those voting on the question vote to remove the 
officer then the office shall become vacant and the vacancy filled as provided by law, provided that 
the officer recalled shall in no event be appointed to fill the vacancy. 

Section 18. Conduct Of Special Elections. Special elections for recall shall be conducted and 
the results canvassed and certified in all respects as general elections, except as 
herein otherwise provided. The powers and duties conferred or imposed by law upon boards of 
election, registration officers, canvassing boards and other public officials who conduct general 
elections, are conferred and imposed upon similar officers conducting recall elections under the 
provisions of this article together with the penalties prescribed for the breach thereof. 

Section 19. Expenses Of Election. Expenses of a recall election for a state officer shall be paid 
from the funds of the state , and expenses of a recall election for an officer of a political subdivision 
of the state shall be paid from the funds of such subdivision. 

Section 20. Provisions Applicable To Members Of Congress. The provisions of this act 
relating to recall of state officers and recall elections are appUcable to the recall of an Unitkl States 
senator or representative, except that only electors residing in a representative's congressional 
district shall be eligible to petition for his recall or vote at the recall election. 

Section 21. Petition For Advisory Recall Of United States District Judge. When there is filed 
with the secretary of state a petition containing the signatures of qualified electors equalling five 
percent (5%) of the persons voting at the preceding state general election, requesting the 
resignation of a United States district judge for the district of Montana, the secretary of state, 
shall submit to the electors at the next ensuing general election, the question whether the elections 
request the resignation of the judge. The petition shall be in the form as hereinabove provided 
except that it will request the resignation of rather than demand the recall of the United States 
district judge. The petition shall contain a statement of not more than two hundred (200) words 
setting forth the reasons for the request. Upon filing of the petition, the judge against whom the 
petition is filed shall be immediately notified by the secretary of state of the filing, and there shall 
be printed upon the ballot the statement in petition, and, at the request of the judge, a statement 
by him of not more than two hundred (200) words in response to the request which may be a 
statement that the judge deems himself committed to resign dependent on the results of the 
pi Option 

Section 22. Form Of Ballot— Advisory Election Of Successor. The form of the ballot shall be 
as provided in Section 16 except that the question presented shall be "shall(name of person) be - 
requested to resign from the office of United States District Judge, Yes . . . No . . . "The 
registered voters shall vote by make a cross (X) in the space after the word "Yes" or "No." Im- 
mediately below and separate from the question shall be printed the words: "For United States 
District Judge (Recommended to the President for appointment)", and there shall then follow the 
names of candidates for the office as have been filed with the secretary of state not less than forty 
(40) days prior to the election by petiton of five percent (5%) of the electors. 

Section 23. Certification Of Results. Within ten (10) days after certification of the results of 
the election, the secretary of state shall transmit the results to the judge named in the petition, 
and if the resignation is favored, to the President and Senate of the United States. 

If a majority of the voters voting on the question have requested the resignation of the judge, 
and a vacancy occurs, the majority candidate for the office shall be deemed endorsed by the 
electors and recommended to the President and Senate of the United States for appointment and 
confirmation tc nil the vacancy. 

Section 24. Advisory Election For United States District Judge. When a vacancy occurs m 
the office of a United State district judge for the district of Montana, the electorate may, by ad- 
visory vote, endorse and recommend to the President and the Senate of the United States an 
appointee to fill the vacancy. 

There shall be printed upon the ballot at the next primary, special or general election held 
through the State after the vacancy, the words: "For United States District Judge (recom- 
mendation to the President and Senate for appointment)", and below, the names of persons fOed 
with the secretary of state by petition of not less than five percent (5%) of the electors not less than 
forty (40) days before the election. If congress will convene before the election at which the vote 



Page Thirty 



can be taken, the governor shall, on petition of five percent (5%) of the electors, call a special 
election for such purpose to be held not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days 
after filing the petition. 

Section 25. Severability And Construction. If any one or more articles, provision, section, 
subsection, clause, phrase or word of this act or the application thereof to any person or cir- 
cumstance is found to be unconstitutional, the same is hereby declared to be severable and the 
balance of this part shall remain effective notwithstanding such unconstitionality. The people 
hereby declare that they would have passed this part, and each article, provision, section, sub- 
section, sentence, clause phrase or word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more 
article, provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word be declared un- 
constitutional. 



The manner in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election, 
November 2, 1976 is as follows: 



PROPOSED PETITION FOR INITIATIVE 

INITIATIVE NO. 73 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

This proposed act provides for the recall of any person holding public office, either elected or 
appoints! . A officer could be recalled for any reason, regardless of a good faith attempt to perform 
his duties. A recall petition for state officers must contain ten percent (10%) of the voters in the 
last state general election; for county officers - fifteen percent (15%); and for city and town officers 
- twenty percent (20%). If the petition is successful a recsdl election will be held for the officer 
involved. The act also has provisions for advisory recall and election of United States district 
judges. 



THE MONTANA RECALL AND ADVISORY RECALL ACT 



For the Recall and Advisory Recall Act. 



Against the Recall and Advisory Recall Act. 



ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

The Montana Recall and Advisory Recall Act is designed to give back to the people the power 
of recall which was taken away by the enactment of the 1972 Montana Constitution. Because over 
80% of our government is presently in the hands of appointed officials, this act also provides for 
the recall of appointed officials. 

In our original form of government all government officials were meant to be responsible to the 
people. This responsible governmental system was changed by the introduction of vast 
bureaucracies made up of mostly appointed officials with no provisions for redress or recourse for 
the citizens. Hence the need for the right to recall appointed officials. 



Page Thirty-one 

The recall law is an effort to put control of government back into the hands of the people by 
giving the citizens of Montana the authority to recaU any government official from office if he fails 
to uphold the Constitution of the United States or ignores his fiduciary responsibility to the 

electorate. , , , ■ ^ 

The petition was officiaUy signed by 16,510 people, although many more signatures were 
obtained but were disquahfied because of various technicalities. This shows that many Montanans 
are convinced that such a law is necessary and badly needed to protect our state from the growth 
and ravages of unresponsive government. 

PUBLISHERS MONTANA CITIZENS 

S/ Fred O. BeU 
Robert L. Lewis 
Wyvverne Cranmore 

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

Recall, the procedure through which voters may remove an elected official, is an integral part 
of democracy. Properly implemented, recall is an effective tool for holding the people's 
representatives accountable. However, Initiative # 73 would fail to realize benefits traditionally 
associated with recall because it contains the following defects: (1) it indiscriminately applies to 
officials in all branches and at all levels of government; (2) it would make government unworkable 
by destroying Unes of accountability between elected and appointed officials; and (3) its language 
is ambiguous, leaving many questions unanswered. 

The initiative uses a shotgun approach when careful aim is required. It lumps together all 
kinds of officials, failing to recognize different quaUfications and election procedures. Effective 
recall provisions would address separately the officials of each level and branch of government. 
For example, the proposed Montana local government code details recall procedures that apply 
only to municipal and county officials. Moreover, specific procedures for recalling members of 
Congress should take into account difference in length of terms between Senators (six years) and 
House members who akeady face election every two years. Furthermore, extending recall to the 
judiciary requires careful attention to the nature of the judicial process; recall as provided in 
Initiative # 73 could violate the judiciary's integrity and independence. 

The initiative's most critical defect is inclusion of appointed officials. This approach Ues 
completely outside the traditional scope of recall and would undermine effective governmental 
administration. First, the proposal fails to clarify who is an appointed pubhc official, leaving open 
the possibility that any governmental employee (however ordinary his job) can be removed. 
Secondly, it would subject appointed officials to harassment and lead to timid rather than 
energetic government. Thirdly, recall of appointed officials undermines lines of accountabiUty 
whereby governmental employees are disciplined by their superiors. If it is felt that certain ap- 
pointed positions should be subject to direct popular control, then the proper step is to make those 
positions elective. 

The initiative, through both ommission and ambiguity, leaves critical questions unanswered 
and renders recall unworkable. It is not clear where application begins or ends. Does it apply to the 
hundreds of school districts, special service districts and countless local government boards and 
commissions? How does it apply to the state judiciary? Would it apply to state highway 
patrolmen, game wardens, local police, and teachers? 

An example of lack of clarity is the case of legislators, who are state officials elected from 
districts. There is no language in the initiative that specifies which voters are eUgible to sign a 
recall petition or vote in a recall election for legislators. Ambiguous language would appear to 
allow voters in one legislative district to sign a recall petition and vote in a recall election for a 
legislator in another district. 

Frequent recall elections stemming from the initiative's loose language thus would serve to 
expand bureaucratic procedures, increase election costs, and dilute the importance of regularly 
scheduled elections. Voters who desire an effective recall provision will not achieve it by passing 
this initiative. 

S/ James J. Lopach 
Patrick L. Paul 
Lauren S. McKinsey 
Lon J. Maxwell 
Chet M. Blaylock 



Page Thirty-two 

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE 

The intent of Initiative No. 73, to promote accountability of government officials.is laudable. 
Unfortunately, the proponents' arguments vest on a seriously erroneous assumption, that being 
that appointive officials should be subject to recall. If over eighty percent of government officials 
are appointed (and if this is the reason why they are not responsible to the people), then the answer 
is to make these positions elective in the first place. The 1889 Montana Constitution, regardless of 
the proponents erroneous implication, did not give the people the power of recall over appointive 
officials. Therefore, the 1972 Constitution did not take this power away, and this initiative would 
not restore a previously held right. 

A proper recall measure would include specific provisions for specific elective offices. Elected 
officials who are directly accountable to the people would then exercise closer supervision over 
appointive bureaucratic positions. Recall is a time-honored tool of democratic government. But as 
provided in this measure, voters would not realize the benefits traditionally associated with recall. 

S/ James J. Lopach 
Lauren S. McKinsey 
Lon J. Maxwell 
Patrick L. Paul 
Chet Blaylock 

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT 
ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE 

Contrary to what those favoring rejection of Initiative # 73 may say, the initiative does realize 
all of the benefits associated with recall. 

It does lump all elected and appointed officials recognizing that regardless of position held it 
is still the responsibility of officials elected or appointed to perform their duties exactly as 
presented by law. 

The question was asked, "Would it apply to highway patrolmen, game wardens, local police 
emd teachers?" 

People who are not elected or APPOINTED but are hired have no fear of Initiative # 73. 

They state that there is no language in the initiative that specifies which voters are eUgible to 
sign a recall petition or vote in a recall election for legislators. 

Page 2, Section 10 of the Recall Petition states that every person who is a quahfied elector of 
this state may sign a petition for recall of a state officer. Every person who is a quahfied elector of 
a poUtical subdivision of this state may sign a petition for recall of an officer of that poUtical 
subdivision. This seems to do away with any question on this matter. 

In conclusion, it appears that those writing the argument advocating rejection of Initiative #73 
have not thoroughly read the act. What these people seem to be trying to do is scare those persons 
hired by elected or appointed officials into beUeving that their jobs are at stake. On the contrary, 
their job positions would be strengthened by knowing that their superiors are accountable to the 
public for following the laws governing them. 

PUBLISHERS MONTANA CITIZENS 
8/ Bud Wallace, Sec., Treas. 



V