Full text of "Voter information for proposed constitutional amendments, referendums, initiatives ..."

See other formats

324*786
S2v

1978

» » 9

.ETURN

INFORMATION

FOR

PROPOSED

CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENTS

REFERENDUM!

AH DOCI^jaf f«TS COILECTION

INITIATIVES 'Z '''''

mwmh .STATE Lm.^ARY

930 I \M^t\^Q /|V9.

Helena. Montana 59601

General Election
November 7, 1978

Prepared by FRANK MURRAY, Secretary of State,

pursuant to Sections 23-2802 and 37-128

Revised Codes of Montana

State Publishing Co., Helena, Mont

Montana State Library

3 0864 1004 3872 3

Table of Contents

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, REFERENDUMS AND INITIATIVES
General Election Ballot. November 7, 1978

Pages

Constitutional Amendment No. 4 1" 4

Constitutional Amendment No. 5 4- 7

Constitutional Amendment No. 6 8-12

Constitutional Amendment No. 7 12-16

Constitutional Amendment No. 8 .- 16-18

Constitutional Initiative No. 8 18-22

Legislative Referendum No. 74 22-26

Legislative Referendum No. 75 ; 26-29

Initiative No. 79 29-33

Initiative No. 80 *• 34-40

Initiative No. 81 40-49

STATE PUBLISHING CO. — HELENA, MONTANA

Page One

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 4

Secretfiry of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 4 was introduced as House Bill No. 29 in the regular
session of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 29 passed the House of Repre-
sentatives by a vote of 60 for and 36 against with 4 members absent. The Senate vote was 41
to 8 in favor of the bill with 1 member absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Article II, Section 14, of the Montana Constitution provides that a person 18 years of age
or older is an adult for aU purposes, including the right to possess and consume alcoholic
beverages. This amendment would limit Article II, Section 14, by allowing the legislature or
the people to raise the legal age for consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages to 19. How-
ever, this constitutional amendment itself would not raise the drinking age.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE II, SECTION 14, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW
THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PEOPLE BY INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH THE LEGAL
AGE FOR CONSUMING OR POSSESSING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

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

Section 1. Article II, section 14, of the Montana constitution is amended to read as
follows:

"Section 14. Adult rights. A person 18 years of age or older is an adult for all purposes,
except that the legislature or the people by initiative may establish an age of not more than
19 as the legal age for consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages."

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate this amendment shall be effective
January 1, 1979.

Section 3. Submission to electors. This amendment shall be submitted to the electors of
the state of Montana at the general election to be held November 7, 1978, by printing on the
ballot the full title, and the following:

FOR allowing the legislature or the people to establish the legal drinking age.

I I AGAINST allowing the legislature or the people to establish the legal drinking age.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

Among our rights is the constitutional right of amending the Constitution. The purpose of
this proposition is to fulfill that right by allowing the voters to change Article II, Section 14
of the Montana Constitution which would permit the legislature or the people to establish the
legal drinking age. This referendum makes it possible, in future years, to change the legal
drinking age, in the event changes in our society warrant it, without amending the Constitu-
tion again. The age, however, cannot be raised to more than 19.

Page Two

Voting "yes" on this amendment allows the people a greater voice in determining the legal
drinking age.

S/ Allen C. Kolstad, Chr.
Esther G. Bengtson
Angela Romain

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

Article II, Section 14 of the Montana Constitution reads "Adult Rights. A Person 18
years of age or older is an adult for all purposes." Constitutional Amendment No. 4 would
make one exception to this.

Constitutional Amendment No. 4 would remove one adult right from a class of adult resi-
dents of this state, those 18 years of age. It would clear the way for eighteen year old in-
dividuals to be denied the right to purchase and consume alcohoUc beverages. No other group
of adults would be affected.

We urge rejection of Constitutional Amendment No. 4 because it is blatantly discrimina-
tory. One is either an adult or not. One should be able to exercise all rights and responsi-
bilities of this society if he or she is an adult. To create a special class of adults who could be
arrested, prosecuted, and punished for doing something other adults may choose to do would
violate the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution. A state cannot deny
to a class of adults a right available to other adults.

There would be serious problems in prosecuting an 18 year old for the purchase and pos-
session of alcoholic beverages. An 18 year old is an adult, so he could not be prosecuted in
youth court since he is no longer a minor. On the other hand, severe constitutional issues
would be raised for prosecuting an 18 year old for doing that which other adults are not
prosecuted and punished for.

Clearly, the age at which one becomes an adult, with its attendant rights and responsi-
bihties, must be uniform. Obviously. Constitutional Amendment No. 4 does not provide for a
uniform age of adulthood. On this basis, we urge rejection of the amendment.

S/ Greg Jergeson. Chr.
Bill Baeth
Jim Pasma

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

Recognizing the right of the people to amend Montana's Constitution, we assert that Con-
stitutional Amendment No. 4 is improperly drafted. In order to avoid serious inconsistencies
and violation of the 'equal protection' clause of the U. S. Constitution, the Amendment should
have been drafted to permit the raising of the age of adulthood across the board. To say that
18 year olds are mature enough to exercise all rights and responsibilities of adulthood except
one wiU have severe and incalcuable implications.

For this reason, we urge rejection of this amendment.

S/ Greg Jergeson, Chr.
William R. Baeth
Jim Pasma

Page Three

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

The purpose of the Constitutional Amendment is to change the Constitution. No Constitu-
tion is embedded in concrete and to avoid any problems of the constitutionality of a law
changing the drinking age, it is necessary to amend the Constitution.

Purchasing and consuming alcoholic beverages is not necessarily a right belonging to all
adults. Rights are balanced by responsibility. Clearly, the consequence of allowing this privil-
ege to belong to 18-year olds has created and contributed to problems that must be dealt with
in a sure-handed manner. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with creating special classes of
adults. It merely faces a serious problem head-on and deals with by determining that this
particular privilege is not in the best interest of our youth. Thirty two states have set the
drinking age higher than 18 and have no constitutional or law enforcement problems.

There would be no problems in prosecuting 18 year olds for the purchase and possession of
alcoholic beverages. The law would simply spell out the penalties and officials would adminis-
ter the law to offenders. It would be handled no differently than any other misdemeanor. The
question of whether he is a minor or an adult would be irrelevant. There would be no problem
as to having a uniform age for having the privilege of consuming alcoholic beverages. Legal
opinions do not regard possessing and consuming alcoholic beverages a right accorded to any
and all adults regardless of the attendant ability and responsibility to handle it.

S/ Allen C. Kolstad, Chr.
Esther G. Bengtson

The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Official
BaUot at the General Election, November 7, 1978, is as follows:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 4

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 4 was introduced as House Bill No. 29 in the regular ses-
sion of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 29 passed the House of Representa-
tives by a vote of 60 for and 36 against with 4 members absent. The Senate vote was 41 to 8 in
favor of the bill with 1 member absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Article II, Section 14, of the Montana Constitution provides that a person 18 years of age or
older is an adult for all purposes, including the right to possess and consume alcoholic bever-
ages. This amendment would limit Article II, Section 14, by aUowing the legislature or the
people to raise the legal age for consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages to 19. However,
this constitutional amendment itself would not raise the drinking age.

Page Four

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE II. SECTION 14. OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW
THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PEOPLE BY INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH THE LEGAL
AGE FOR CONSUMING OR POSSESSING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

FOR allowing the legislature or the people to establish the legal drinking age.
AGAINST allowing the legislature or the people to establish the legal drinking age.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5
Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 5 was introduced as House Bill No. 217 in the regular ses-
sion of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 217 passed the House of Represen-
tatives by a vote of 86 for and 9 against with 2 members excused and 3 absent. The Senate
vote was 43 to 5 in favor of the bill with 1 member excused and 1 absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The legislature now limits State government spending by enacting budget appropriations
for each agency based on the anticipated amount of available funds. Between legislative ses-
sions additional unanticipated funds become available to agencies. The constitutional amend-
ment would authorize a joint legislative committee between legislative sessions to approve or
disapprove expenditures of these unanticipated funds. The 1975 Legislature established such a
joint interim committee, but the Montana Supreme Court declared the committee was an un-
constitutional delegation of legislative power properly reserved to the executive branch of
government or the entire legislative body.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE VIII. SECTION 12. OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ADD A
SECTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERIM LEGISLATIVE COM-
MITTEE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO SPEND FUNDS
NOT APPROPRIATED AT THE PRECEDING SESSION.

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

Section 1. Section 12, Article VIII, of the Montana constitution is amended to read as
follows:

"Section 12. Strict accountability. The legislature shall by law insure strict accountability
of all revenue received and money spent by the state and counties, cities, towns, and all other
local governmental entities. In order to insure strict accountabihty. the legislature shall es-
tablish by law a committee comprised of members of both houses of the legislature which may,
between sessions of the legislature, approve or disapprove for expenditure by any institution
or agency of the state funds which were not available for consideration by the legislature."

Page Five

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this amendment is effective
January 1. 1979.

D
D

FOR authorizing a joint interim committee of the legislature to approve or reject bud-
get amendments to spend funds not appropriated at the preceding session.

AGAINST authorizing a joint interim committee of the legislature to approve or reject
budget amendments to spend funds not appropriated at the preceding session.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

In 1975 the Montana Legislature in an effort to control government spending created a bi-
partisan Legislative Finance Committee with authority to approve or disapprove expenditures
by state government during interim periods when the Legislature is not in session. Prior to the
formation of the committee, such interim appropriations known as budget amendments had
been authorized by the Executive branch of government. This created a conflicting situation
wherein two branches of government authorized appropriations, the Legislature while in
session, and the Executive during the interim. Subsequently, the authority of the Legislature
to approve or disapprove budget amendments during the interim was challenged in court on
constitutional grounds. A 1976 Montana Supreme Court ruling held that while it was indeed
the authority of the legislative branch to authorize appropriations, the current language of the
Constitution did not specifically extend that authority over budget amendments considered
during the interim.

Therefore, the 1977 session of the Legislature, by a two-thirds majority vote, passed legisla-
tion recommending a constitutional amendment, that if approved by the voters of Montana
would grant authority to the Legislature over all appropriations for the operation of state
government.

Identified as Constitutional Amendment #5 its effect would serve to fix a limitation on
state spending by placing full responsibihty for appropriations on the legislative branch,
eliminating the lack of accountability that exists when two separate branches of government
share the control over state expenditures.

S/ J. A. Turnage, Chr.
Francis Bardanouve
Stan Stephens

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

The proposed amendment would create a "super committee" which would have tremendous
power. Such a committee is untenable for the following reasons:

1. A few select legislators would make decisions in the name of the entire 150-member
legislature. Article V, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution provides that "No bill shall
become law except by a vote of the majority of all members present and voting." To delegate so
much authority to so few is inconsistent with the traditional notion and constitutional mandate
that legislative power should only be exercised by the majority of the legislature.

2. The idea that the committee would control growth in state government caused by the
approval of budget amendments is only a fallacy for the following reasons:

Page Six

a. Authority to spend General Fund monies cannot be granted via the budget amendment
process.

b. New programs or program expansions authorized via budget amendment must with-
stand the scrutiny of the full legislature when in session; otherwise, the program or expansion is
terminated or otherwise modified as deemed appropriate by the full legislature.

3. The Governor would be handicapped in performing his constitutionally mandated re-
sponsibility of administering the Executive Branch. It is unreasonable to expect a governor (or
any administrator) to accept responsibihty to administer an operation without having at least
minimal control over fiscal affairs.

4. Federal funds, which are the primary funds dealt with by the budget amendment
process, may be lost due to non-availability of an approving authority. At times, due to emer-
gency or unusual situations, the state has only days to act upon offers of federal assistance.
This problem was encountered with the Interim Finance Committee in 1975 when attempting to
provide relief to flood victims.

5. A danger exists that the geographic areas of the members of the committee would fare
more favorably than other areas, even assuming unquestionable integrity among all members.

6. The system of checks and balances proven effective for the state would be changed.
Indeed, federal funds available and necessary for Montana and its citizens could be lost without

recourse.

S/ Gary N. Kimble

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

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

1. The entire legislature overwhelmingly approved granting an interim legislative commit-
tee authority over interim appropriations. At the present time such authority is vested in
appointed bureaucrats who are not directly accountable to the public. All fifty state
legislatures and the federal Congress function on the delegation of authority to standing and
select committees.

2. Currently, legislative control over the growth of government is often after the fact. New
and sometimes questionable programs are 18 months old and fully entrenched within the
bureaucracy before the legislature has the opportunity to review them.

3. An interim legislative committee would not handicap the Governor in discharging his
duties. The Governor and his administrative heads would continue to administer their own
budgets. However, requests for increased spending authority during the interim would require
approval by the committee.

4. The legislature provides the Governor with an emergency budget. Control of this budget
would remain solely with the Governor, enabling him to take immediate action in emergency
situations.

5. The Rules of the legislature provide for the disciplining of any member who fails to carry
out assigned duties in a responsible and ethical manner.

6. The availability of federal funds will not change with this amendment. What will
change is the degree of accountability over spending during interim periods when the legisla-
ture is not in session.

The Legislature which is elected by the people should control and be accountable for the
expenditure of government funds.

S/ J. A. Turnage, Chr.
Francis Bardanouve
Stan Stephens

Page Seven

The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Offi-
cial Ballot at the General Election, November 7, 1978, is as follows:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 5 was introduced as House Bill No. 217 in the regular
session of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 217 passed the House of Repre-
sentatives by a vote of 86 for and 9 against with 2 members excused and 3 absent. The
Senate vote was 43 to 5 in favor of the bill with 1 member excused and 1 absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The legislature now limits State government spending by enacting budget appropriations
for each agency based on the anticipated amount of available funds. Between legislative ses-
sions additional unanticipated funds become available to agencies. The constitutional amend-
ment would authorize a joint legislative committee between legislative sessions to approve or
disapprove exi>enditures of these unanticipated funds. The 1975 Legislature established such a
joint interim committee, but the Montana Supreme Court declared the committee was an un-
constitutional delegation of legislative power properly reserved to the executive branch of
government or the entire legislative body.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 12, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ADD A
SECTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERIM LEGISLATIVE COM-
MITTEE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO SPEND FUNDS
NOT APPROPRIATED AT THE PRECEDING SESSION.

D
D

FOR authorizing a joint interim conmiittee of the legislature to approve or reject bud-
get amendments to spend funds not appropriated at the preceding session.

AGAINST authorizing a joint interim committee of the legislature to approve or reject
budget amendments to spend funds not appropriated at the preceding session.

Page Eight

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 6

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 6 was introduced as House Bill 361 in the regular session
of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 361 passed the House of Representa-
tives by a vote of 78 for and 19 against with 2 members excused and 1 absent. The Senate
vote was 41 to 8 in favor of the bill with 1 member absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Article XI, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution requires a locally elected government
study commission to review each local government once every 10 years. The commission then
must submit one alternative form of government to the voters at the next general election. This
constitutional amendment would require an election once every 10 years to determine whether a
local government review is necessary. A majority of voters must approve the local government
review before a study commission can be elected. If a majority of the voters does not approve
the local government review, then a study commission will not be elected and no review proce-
dure will take place.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE XI OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO MAKE VOTER RE-
VIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AN OPTIONAL PROCEDURE AND TO ALLOW THE
PEOPLE TO EXERCISE THIS OPTION EVERY 10 YEARS.

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

Section 1. Article XI, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution is amended to read as follows:

"Section 9. Voter review of local government. (1) The legislature shall, within four years
of the ratification of this constitution, provide procedures requiring each local government unit
or combination of units to review its structure and submit one alternative form of government
to the qualified electors at the next general or special election.

(2) The legislature shall require an election in each local government to determine whether a
local government will undertake a review procedure once every ten years after the first election-
Approval by a majority of those voting in the decennial general election on the question of
undertaking a local government review is necessary to mandate the election of a local govern-
ment study commission. Study commission members shall be elected during any regularly
scheduled election in local governments mandating their election."

Section 2. Implementation. If not already implemented, the legislature shall implement
this amendment with appropriate legislation in 1979, in order that the electors of each local
government may indicate their preference "For" or "Against" the establishment of a study
commission in 1984.

FOR making voter review of local government optional.
AGAINST making voter review of local government optional.

Page Nine

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to make Voter Review of Local Government
an optional procedure. The 1974 Legislature provided for a review procedure, which the state
completed in 1976, to meet the Constitutional requirement for a review to take place within four
years of the ratification of the constitution. Attention must now shift to the language of the
constitution that requires a review procedure once every ten years after that initial review.

Under the language proposed in the constitutional amendment, every ten years the electors
in each municipality and county would be given the opportunity to vote for or against a review
of local government. If a majority of those voting voted in the affirmative, a study commission
would then be elected and a review process undertaken. If a majority of electors voted against
undertaking a review, no further action would be required.

The amendment will clarify a provision of the constitution concerning the method by which
voter review is to occur. The current constitutional language leaves open for interpretation
whether every ten years (1) a full review of the magnitude required for the initial review or (2)
only a "review procedure" of some t}T)e is all that was intended by the framers of the constitu-
tion:

Section 9 directs the Legislature to provide for a "review procedure" each ten years
after the first election. Such decennial review would not necessarily have to require that
each unit in the state go through the complete review required the first time. (Emphasis
added.)

The 1974 and 1975 legislative sessions designed a procedure that required each local govern-
ment to review its structure and submit an alternative to the voters. The mandatory pro-
cedures were detailed, complex and expensive. The 1974 and 1975 sessions appropriated funds
totalling $1,141,300 to partially finance work of the study commissions. Approximately
$933,000 in state and local funds was expended.

Voter approval of study commission recommendations for changes was extremely scattered.
Out of a total of 175 elections on alternative forms, only 31 yielded changes; seven communities
conducted no election at all. Some changes in structures were adopted by the narrowest of
margins and resulted in only minor changes. In a majority of instances, elections indicated an
overwhelming voter rejection of change. The taxpaying public in Montana received very little
in return for its multi-million doUar investment.

Recent initiatives have demonstrated that the taxpaying and voting public is wary of
changes in government — it is instead concerned with making existing structures function more
efficiently and effectively. The proposed amendment fulfills the spirit of the constitutional
convention by continuing to authorize a review process, but it does so by permitting the elec-
torate to evaluate the necessity of a review.

8/ Harold L. Dover, Chr.
Willie Day
James T. Mular

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

The 1972 Montana Constitution gave Montana citizens the right to examine periodically
their forms of local government for the first time since statehood and, if they so choose, to
modify or change them. The process, carried out every ten years, puts the power to do this
where it belongs — with the people.

The proposed amendment would seriously erode this right. Because it makes people vote
only on whether or not to review their governments, it forces them to make a decision before
they know the options. It takes away their right to make an educated choice.

The present Constitution guarantees this educated choice. Because it requires open debate
on local issues, it increases voter interest and awareness. The process helps us learn what we

Page Ten

do have and what we might have — and lets us choose what we want. Local voters, given the
opportunity to find answers to local government problems, are made the final judges. We
decide whether or not the proposed alternative would be better than what we have.

We have had only one review since the new Constitution's adoption six years ago. The
citizens in some communities, for instance, Billings, Circle. Helena, Madison, and Silver Bow,
chose to change their forms of government. Others did not. This is democracy as it should be.

The cost of voter review is repaid by its benefits: a local government, knowing it is being
checked up on, becomes more responsive and responsible. As the community changes, the
government can change with it. Even if the government is not modified, more people become
interested and involved in their local government and officials hear the clearly expressed
concerns of citizens and have to show how they are dealing with them. In short, the improve-
ments in local government which result from the voter review process will more than repay
the costs.

Local governments deal with people's lives more closely than either the state or national
governments. Since we are responsible for making them work, we need to know what the
choices are before we decide which one we want. The present Constitution guarantees this

right. Let's keep it that way.

S/ Pat Regan, Chr.
Harold Gerke
Peter Koehn

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

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

The arguments of the opponents of the proposed amendment are naive and misleading.

First, Voter Review is a constitutional mandate, not a constitutional right. Most communi-
ties only very reluctantly fulfilled the obligation. In most communities, citizens were forced to
make a choice about issues which they felt should not have been raised in the first place.
Without amendment, the constitution would continue to require this condition.

Second, the opponents would have the voter believe that Voter Review is the only way that
government structures can be changed. In fact, where citizens desire changes in government,
there are methods available to achieve those changes without the mandate of ten year review.
Missoula changed the structure of its municipal government three times and Great Falls,
Helena, Poison and Petroleum County each once. Similar, but unsuccessful, efforts to change
government were attempted in other jurisdictions. All of these efforts resulted from local initia-
tive and were completed before Voter Review was mandated.

Third, there is no tangible evidence that citizen involvement and interest have increased
because of Voter Review.

We share the opponents' interest in responsive and responsible government. We feel, how-
ever, that government structures and operations are fundamental. People, not forms of govern-
ment, are responsive and accountable. Unless persisting conditions indicate that the structure
of government obscures responsiveness and accountability, a change in elected leadership
usually improves government.

Where local conditions demonstrate a need for change in structure, the amendment would
permit review and recommendations in only those communities desiring structural changes.

S/ Harold L. Dover. Chr.
James T. Mular
Willie Day

Page Eleven

The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Official
Ballot at the General Election, November 7, 1978, is as follows:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 6

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 6 was introduced as House Bill 361 in the regular session of
the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 361 passed the House of Representatives by
a vote of 78 for and 19 against with 2 members excused and 1 absent. The Senate vote was 41
to 8 in favor of the bill with 1 member absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Section 1. Article XI, Section 9 of the Montana constitution is amended to read as follows:

(2) The legislature shaU require an election in each local government to determine whether a
local government will undertake a review procedure once every ten years after the first election.
Approvftl by a majority of those voting in the decennial general election on the question of
undertaking a local government review is necessary to mandate the election of a local govern-
ment study commission. Study commission members shall be elected during any regularly
scheduled election in local governments mandating their election."

Page Twelve
I FOR making voter review of local government optional.

AGAINST making voter review of local government optional.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7
Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 7 was introduced as House Bill No. 567 in the regular ses-
sion of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 567 passed the House of Representa-
tives by a vote of 79 for and 5 against with 2 members excused and 14 absent. The Senate vote
was 39 to 6 with 2 members excused and 3 absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The Montana Constitution gives the Montana Supreme Court exclusive control over ad-
mission to the bar. Admission to the bar is the granting of a license to an individual by the
state to practice law. No one can practice law in Montana without being admitted to the bar.
This constitutional amendment would allow the legislature to disapprove the rules of the
Supreme Court regarding the requirements for admission to the bar.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE VII, SECTION 2. OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW
THE LEGISLATURE TO DISAPPROVE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

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

Section 1. Article VII, Section 2, of the Montana Constitution is amended to read as
follows:

"Section 2. Supreme Court jurisdiction. (1) The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction
and may issue, hear, and determine writs appropriate thereto. It has original jurisdiction to
issue, hear, and determine writs of habeas corpus and such other writs as may be provided by
law.

(2) It has general supervisory control over all other courts.

(3) It may make rules governing appellate procedure, practice and procedure for all other
courts, admission to the bar and the conduct of its members. Rules of procedure and rules for
admission to the bar shall be subject to disapproval by the legislature.

(4) Supreme Court process shall extend to aU parts of the state."

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this amendment shall be effective
January 1, 1979.

Section 3. Submission to the electors. This amendment shall be submitted to the electors
of the state of Montana at the general election to be held in November, 1978, by printing on the
ballot the full title of this act and the following:

Page Thirteen

FOR allowing the legislature to disapprove rules for admission to the b«u- promulgated
by the Supreme Court.

AGAINST allowing the legislature to disapprove rules for admission to the bar prom-
ulgated by the Supreme Court.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

The possession and use of power by government is a vital concern of every citizen."
For this reason the Constitution of the State of Montana carefully reserves to each of the
branches of government; legislative, executive, and judicial, certain clearly defined areas of
power. At the same time it provides a system of check and balances to prevent any one branch
of government from becoming overwhelmingly powerful at the expense of the other two
branches.

Montana's constitution presently gives the supreme court "general supervisory control over
all other courts" and allows it to "make rules governing; practice and procedure for all other
courts, admission to the bar and conduct of its members". It continues: "Rules of procedure
shall be subject to disapproval by the legislature in either of the two sessions following promul-
gation".

The check and balance process embodied in that last sentence is insufficient. The legislature,
as the most immediate expression of the voice of the people, must therefore have more input in
the matter of control of the Montana bar. Two sessions are clearly not enough to make clear
how the rules of procedure may work or what they may be interpreted to mean by the supreme
court.

Let us more closely examine what the matter of "admission to the bar and control of its
members" means. To practice law in Montana, a person must be first admitted to the Montana
bar by one of four routes presently prescribed by the supreme court: by being allowed to take
and subsequently passing the bar examination provided for by the court; by graduation from
the Montana University law school (without taking the bar exam, under the so-called "diploma
privilege"); by reciprocity agreement with certain other states; and by unqualified direct order
of the court. All lawyers, public prosecutors, district and supreme court judges must be mem-
bers in good standing of the Montana bar.

The supreme court has the power of determining the liveUhood. if not life, of the legal profes-
sion in Montana. It decides how and whether or not a person becomes an attorney and whether
a person can continue in his profession as an attorney. Because of the "diploma privilege" it
even exerts control over the law school.

This is an immense power. It is a necessary power if the legal system is to function
equitably, but it must be subject to checks and balances. It is not at present. The proposed
constitutional amendment will provide the proper and necessary check and balance.

Turning to the supreme court's power to control practice and procedure for all courts, we
find this power awesome. It affects not only lawyers, judges and other officers of the courts but
also law offices, plaintiffs, defendants, appellants and every citizen in the state. A truly effec-
tive check on this power is necessary, one that is continuing and not limited to a few years. The
proposed amendment provides the proper check and balance.

The eight year term of office the constitution provides supreme court judges is necessary
but it can overly insulate the judges from the citizens. This proposed constitutional amend-
ment will bring the voice of the people to the court, through the legislature, without impairing
the court's task of insuring justice and equity.

S/ Carroll Graham, Chr.
Herb Huennekens
Mike Meloy

Page Fourteen

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

The form in which this amendment was passed by the legislature and referred to the people
is misleading and in our opinion is patently illegal. This amendment goes far beyond the intent
as stated in the title in that it addresses two important different subjects: (1) It removes the
time limitation during which the legislature can veto rules of procedure promulgated by the
Supreme Court. (2) It allows the legislature to disapprove the rules of the Supreme Court re-
garding the requirements for admission to the bar. The title would lead voters into believing
they will be voting on only one subject. Such bill construction is deceptive and is prohibited by
the Montana Constitution: (Article V, Section II, Subsection 3) "each bill . . . shall contain only
one subject, clearly expressed in the title."

If this amendment is passed, it should and undoubtedly will be challenged in court. Voters
can save the state legal expense by defeating this amendment.

Regarding the part of the amendment dealing with admission to the bar, the amendment
would transfer power from one body elected by the people (the Supreme Court) to another
elected body (the legislature). Not surprisingly, the proposal originated in the legislature.

In 1969, the Supreme Court, in an attempt to raise the standards of the legal profession,
stipulated that anyone taking the examination for admission to the bar must be a graduate of
an accredited school of law. Prior to this time there was no such educational requirement.

The stand of the Supreme Court establishing this educational requirement is reasonable. It
sets high standards for the legal profession and protects the people of Montana against "diplo-
ma mill lawyers." What is surprising is the fact that the legal profession in Montana took so
long to come out of the dark.

The Supreme Court stand, however, has apparently raised the ire of some legislators, thus
creating at least part of the impetus for this amendment. No longer can legislators or anyone
else be admitted to the practice of law in Montana without an adequate educational back-
ground.

In the final analysis, the question is: which body, the Supreme Court or the legislature, both
elected by the people, is better equipped to make decisions for admission to the bar. We believe
Supreme Court justices, by reason of training, temperament, and experience win the case. Let
us not allow this important matter to become embroiled in legislative politics.

S/ Everett R. Lensink, Chr.
Paul Boylan
Earl C. Lory

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

The substance of the proponents argument is that the judicial branch of state government
(specifically the Supreme Court) is granted too much power by the constitution, and that some
of this power should be transferred to the legislature.

However, not one shred of hard evidence is presented in support of this contention. The pro-
ponents argument uses only vague generalities:

"The check and balance power .... is insufficient."

"The legislature .... must have more input in the matter of control of the Montana bar."

"The Supreme Courts power .... (is) awesome .... A truly effective check on this power
is necessary."

But where is the evidence to support these contentions? Has the Supreme Court neglected
its duty? Has the Supreme Court abused its power? This is no evidence. Only generalities,
which in essence say no more than "the legislature needs this power because it needs this
power."

The constitution should not be changed on a whim. Citizens must be given solid reasons
before they can be expected to vote for this amendment.

S/ Everett R. Lensink, Chr.
Paul Boylan
Earl C. Lory

Page Fifteen

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

The opponent's argument that the bill that created this referendum is illegal is invalid. The
essence of the referendum is the dilution of the power of the supreme court over the legal pro-
fession thru its control of the bar; this is accomplished by requiring legislative approval of
court rules.

The concept already exists in the constitution with regard to supreme court rules for prac-
tice and procedure in all courts. The referendum expands this concept. The unlimited time
frame is an essential element in this expansion and thus properly addressed by the bill.

The bill was amended in the Senate and again in joint conference. It obviously was most
amply discussed. It was approved in its final form by the Senate 39 to 6 and by the House 79 to
5.

The above vote does not indicate fear of court challenge by the legislature, attorneys or
laymen. Every attorney in the legislature voted in favor on that final vote except one absent
House member and he had previously voted consistently aye.

The argument that the public is being misled is answered by the pro and con debate —
including the attorney general's opinion — of which this statement is a part.

The real issue is this: is this constitutional amendment desirable in order to prevent over-
concentration of power in the supreme court by providing for an increase in interaction and
collaboration between the court and the legislature.

S/ Carroll Graham, Chr.
Herb Huennekens

The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Official
Ballot at the General Election, November 7, 1978, is as follows:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutionsil Amendment No. 7 was introduced as House Bill No. 567 in the regular ses-
sion of the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. HB 567 passed the House of Representa-
tives by a vote of 79 for and 5 against with 2 members excused and 14 absent. The Senate vote
was 39 to 6 with 2 members excused and 3 absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The Montana Constitution gives the Montana Supreme Court exclusive control over admis-
sion to the bar. Admission to the bar is the granting of a license to an individual by the state to
practice law. No one can practice law in Montana without being admitted to the bar. This con-
stitutional amendment would allow the legislature to disapprove the rules of the Supreme Court
regarding the requirements for admission to the bar.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE VII, SECTION 2, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW
THE LEGISLATURE TO DISAPPROVE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR PROM-
ULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

D
D

Page Sixteen

FOR allowing the legislature to disapprove rules for admission to the bar promulgated
by the supreme court.

AGAINST allowing the legislature to disapprove rules for admission to the bar prom-
ulgated by the supreme court.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8
Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Constitutional Amendment No. 8 was introduced as Senate Bill 179 in the regular session of
the 45th Legislature of the State of Montana. SB 179 passed the Senate by a vote of 45 for and
2 against with 3 members excused. The House of Representatives vote was 68 to 26 in favor of
the bill with 1 member excused and 5 absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This constitutional amendment states that a legislator may be a candidate for public office
before the end of his legislative term. The amendment requires that a legislator resign from the
legislature before assuming another public office.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMEND-
MENT TO ARTICLE V. SECTION 9, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE
THAT A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE MAY RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE DURING
HIS TERM.

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

Section 1. Article V, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution is amended to read as follows:
"Section 9. Disqualification. No member of the legislature shall, during the term for which
he shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office under the state. A legislator may be
a candidate for public office before the end of his term. He shall resign before assuming another
office. No member of congress, or other person holding an office (except notary public, or the
militia) under the United States or this state, shall be a member of the legislature during his
continuance in office."

Section 2. Submission to electors. This amendment shall be submitted to the electors of
the state of Montana at the general election to be held November 7, 1978, by printing on the
ballot the full title and the following:

FOR allowing a legislator to be a candidate for public office during his term.
AGAINST allowing a legislator to be a candidate for public office during his term.

Page Seventeen

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

This letter will constitute an expression of my argument in favor of Senate Bill 197 of the
1977 State Legislature, which position is concurred in by the members of the Legislature
whose signatures appear below.

It is inequitable and unnecessary that an encumbent legislator be ineligible to seek other
elective public office until after the expiration of his term as a legislator, as is now the re-
quirement pursuant to Article V, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. This amounts to
deprivation of a right and privilege assured all other citizens that are not members of the
Legislature.

A requirement that a legislator resign his legislative office before he assumes another elec-
tive office is a complete and adequate safeguard against the holding of two elective offices by
one person.

S/ George McCallum, Chr.
William E. Murray
Mike Cooney

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

This amendment should be rejected for at least three reasons: 1) public officials should at-
tend to the affairs of the office to which they were elected instead of working at obtaining
another office; 2) the real purpose of the amendment is unclear and unnecessary; and 3) the
amendment unreasonably limits the legislature. Why do we believe the above to be true?

We all know that a public official often has an unfair advantage over an opponent due to
the constant attention of the press. These activities and the resulting attention is all support-
ed by you, the taxpayer. You deserve to have your public officials take their job seriously
instead of aspiring to others. In addition, a public official is much more vulnerable to undue
pressures and conflicts of interest — this is not in your interest.

As this proposed amendment moved through the legislature, its contents were amended so
much that they seem to change its entire purpose. Amendments to the constitution should be
very carefully considered. It may be that many legislators did not study this measure as care-
fully as they should have. We can see no constitutional bar to a legislator running for office
now. What do we gain from this change?

We gain nothing with this amendment, but we do lose something. If the abuses that con-
cern us above become of concern to many Montanans, this amendment will tie the legisla-
ture's hands if a remedy is sought.

We do not want to make it more difficult to control the improper activities of public of-
ficials.

For the above reasons, we urge your rejection of this amendment.

S/ John W. Devine, Chr.
William T. Menahan
Sharon R. Smith

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

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

We feel no rebuttal argument is needed on Constitutional Amendment No. 8.

S/ George McCallum, Chr.

Mike Cooney ,

Page Eighteen

The form in which the question on amending the Constitution will be printed on the Official
Ballot at the General Election, November 7, 1978, is as follows:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

FOR aUowing a legislator to be a candidate for public office during his term.
AGAINST allowing a legislator to be a candidate for public office during his term.

CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 8
Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This proposal would change the provisions of the Montana Constitution relating to property
tax assessment. The present system requires the state to appraise, assess and equalize the
valuation of all taxable property. This initiative would require each County Assessor to per-
form that function for all property situated exclusively within the county. The present system
requires the state to establish the value for taxable property. The initiative would create a
seven member State-County Equalization Commission to establish property valuation and
assessment guidelines with authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Page Nineteen

AN INITIATIVE PROPOSAL TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII. SECTIONS 3 & 4 OF THE
MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT FROM THE STATE AND RESTORE IT TO THE
COUNTIES UNDER THE POLICY DIRECTION OF A STATE-COUNTY EQUALIZATION
COMMISSION.

ARTICLE VIII SECTION 3, of the 1972 Montana Constitution is amended to read as
follows: Property tax administration. Each County Assessor shall appraise, assess, and
equalize the valuation of all property situated exclusively within his County which is to be
taxed in the manner provided by law. The legislature shedl provide for the appraisal, assess-
ment and equalization of all gross and net proceeds and unitary property which constitutes a
single and continuous property in more than one County.

ARTICLE VIII SECTION 4, of the 1972 Montana Constitution is amended to read as
follows: Equal valuation. All County Assessors shall appraise, assess and equalize the valua-
tion of all property under the policy guidelines established by the State-County Equalization
Commission. All taxing jurisdictions shall use those property valuations established under the
policy guidelines of the State-County Equalization Commission. The State-County Equalization
Commission shall be composed of two (2) members appointed by the County Commissioners,
two (2) members appointed by the County Assessors, one (1) member appointed by the Senate,
one (1) member appointed by the House of Representatives, and one (1) member appointed by
the Governor. The Commission shall establish policy guidelines for equal appraisal and assess-
ment, and promulgate rules and regulations for equal appraisal of all property within the State.

D
D

For Returning a Portion of Property Tax Assessing to the Counties.
Against Returning a Portion of Property Tax Assessing to the Counties.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

An initiative to place the responsibility of assessment of property for taxation purposes
with the elected County Officials instead of appointed officials of the State Department of
Revenue.

To assure equalization of property assessments among the various counties, throughout
the State, all assessing and appraising would function under policy guidelines established by a
County-State Equalization Commission.

The membership of this commission would be chosen by elected officials as follows: 2 mem-
bers appointed by County Commissioners; 2 members appointed by County Assessors; 1
member appointed by the State Senate; 1 member appointed by the State House of Represen-
tatives; and 1 member by the State Governor.

The main source of funding for local governments is the property tax, therefore it should
be a local responsibility.

This initiative is an effort to put the control of locally assessed property under the control
of County Elected Officials that are responsible to their constituents, the voters.

There has been a trend toward administrative centralization of taxation at the State level.
The counties have lost their powers to defend themselves in taxation matters. This initiative
would create a remedy.

In summary, this initiative will restore local control of property taxation to local elected
officials.

S/ Floyd Irion, Chr.
George W. Sager
Douglas Allen

Page Twenty

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

1. The measure would not restore or return anything to the counties as a whole. It grants
only to the county assessor equalization powers which he has never had before and requires him
to appraise real property which he has not done since 1957. It puts too much power in the
hands of the county assessor who may have no training in the appraisal of property.

2. Passage of the measure would eliminate present efforts of uniformly appraising similar
property throughout the State. Prior to 1973, homes were appraised differently by local of-
ficials depending on the county in which the property was located. People owning similar
property were being assessed and taxed at different rates depending solely on where they lived.
These inconsistencies will be re-introduced and again be a problem if the primary assessment
process is granted to the assessor.

3. The measure would take the authority to set policy, rules and regulations for the ap-
praisal and assessment of property away from the legislature (whose members are elected by
the people) and give it to an appointed commission. This is contrary to the 1889 and 1972 Con-
stitution which gave this power to the legislature. The measure mandates "equal appraisal of
all property within the state" by the assessor and the commission and could prevent the legisla-
ture from enacting laws to appraise different classes of property in different manners. It is
possible that agricultural property could no longer be assessed at productive value but would
have to be appraised the same as other property.

4. The measure would not reduce anybody's property taxes. The measure, if passed, would
increase local property taxes because the costs of the assessor's and appraiser's offices
(presently 6.8 million dollars per year) would have to be paid by the counties and not by the
State as it is presently.

5. Property should be appraised impartially by a disinterested party (State); experience has
shown that some local officials in the past have tried to keep their valuations low so their
county would receive more than its fair share of State School Foundation money for its schools.
That means taxpayers of other counties are subsidizing taxpayers in those counties where
valuations are artificially low.

6. The measure contains too many words, is ambiguous, and confusing. This could lead to
interpretations and decrees by courts for implementation which are then frozen in the Constitu-
tion. This is in contrast to the flexibility of the legislature which can easily amend or replace
laws to correct problems and deficiencies in tax law.

S/ Russell C. McDonough, Chr.
Arthur H. Shelden
W. A. Groff
Larry Fasbender
Homer K. Langley

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

The proponents state that this initiative will restore local control of property taxation to
local elected officials. This is misleading because local elected officials already control prop-
erty taxation. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of all property taxes are levied and collected by
local elected county, city, and school officials. The broad powers of setting assessment policy
and standards is given to an appointed, not an elected commission. This initiative would take
powers away from elected officials (the legislature) and give them to the county-state equaliza-
tion commission. At present, proposed assessment rules are reviewed by two committees
composed of elected Montana Legislators.

The proposed county-state equalization commission will not have direct control over the
county assessors. Its policies will be impossible to enforce and will result in lawsuits to en-
force some type of equalization between counties as was the situation prior to 1973. The only
thing the proposed measure restores is having each county assessed differently.

Page Twenty-one

The initiative would increase property taxes by causing the counties to pay the cost of
assessing property and it is a step backwards in obtaining fair, just, and equitable valuation
of all property for tax purposes.

S/ RusseU C. McDonough, Chr.
Arthur H. Sheldon
W. A. Groff
Homer K. Langley

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

The initiative places the responsibility of assessing property to a county elected official.
The voter selects by ballot the persons responsible for assessing their property.

The County Assessor would equalize the valuation of property under the guidelines of an
equalization commission selected by elected officials, instead of by State appointed officials
who may have no training in the appraisal of property.

The measure requires the Assessor to follow the guidelines set by the commission for
uniform appraising.

The measure would take no legislative power away from the Legislature. The commission
and Assessors' duties will be to execute the law, not to make it.

The primary purpose is to restore to local government the responsibility of property
assessment. However, there can be little doubt that it will cost the taxpayer less to have this
work done locally than by a large state bureau. The funding procedure for these offices will be
determined by legislature, but whether it is funded at a state or county level it will be from
taxpayers' money.

Property should be appraised impartially by a person elected by all the taxpayers. State-
wide standards of valuation will still have to be complied with.

The initiative as written is clear in its intent and purpose. The first is to restore to the
elected County Assessor the responsibility of local assessments and second to provide for an
equalization commission selected by elected officials. As with all constitutional amendments it
is the responsibility of legislature to enact enabling legislation.

S/ Floyd Irion, Chr.
George W. Sager
Douglas Allen

The form in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election,
November 7, 1978, is as follows:

CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 8

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This proposal would change the provisions of the Montana Constitution relating to property
tax assessment. The present system requires the state to appraise, assess and equalize the

Page Twenty-two

valuation of all taxable property. This initiative would require each County Assessor to per-
form that function for all property situated exclusively within the county. The present system
requires the state to establish the value for taxable property. The initiative would create a
seven member State-County Equalization Commission to establish property valuation and
assessment gviidelines with authority to adopt rules and regulations.

D
D

FOR assigning a portion of property tax assessment to the counties and establishing
a seven member State-County Equalization Commission.

AGAINST assigning a portion of property tax assessment to the counties and estab-
lishing a seven member State-County Equalization Commission.

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 74
Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Referendum No. 74 was introduced as House Bill 28 in the regular session of the 45th Legis-
lature of the State of Montana. HB 28 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 61 for
and 34 against with 1 member excused and 4 absent. The Senate vote was 41 to 6 in favor of
the bill with 3 members excused.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The legal age for consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages in Montana is 18. This
referendum would raise the legal age for consuming or possessing alcohoUc beverage to 19.
This referendum also makes it a criminal offense to give or to sell alcoholic beverages to a
person under 19 years of age.

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 4-6-104. 94-5-609. AND 94-5-610. R.C.M. 1947. TO RAISE
THE LEGAL AGE FOR CONSUMING OR POSSESSING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO
NINETEEN AND PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE
ELECTORS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA.

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

Section 1. Section 4-6-104. R.C.M. 1947. is amended to read as follows:

"4-6-104. Age limit for sale of alcoholic beverages. Except in the case of an alcoholic bev-
erage given to a person under the age of J^ years by his parent or guardian for beverage or
medicinal purposes or administered to him by his physician or dentist for medicinal purposes or
sold to him by a vendor or druggist upon the prescription of a physician, no person shall sell.

Page Twenty-three

give, or otherwise supply an alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of J^ years or per-
mit any person under that age to consume an alcoholic beverage."

Section 2. Section 94-5-609, R.C.M. 1947, is amended to read as follows:
"94-5-609. Unlawful transactions with children. (1) A p>erson commits the offense of un-
lawful transactions with children if he knowingly:

(a) sells or gives explosives to a child under the age of majority except as authorized under
appropriate city ordinances;

(b) sells or gives intoxicating substtmces other than alcoholic beverages to a child under the
age of majority;

(d) being a junk dealer, pawnbrokerj_or secondhand dealer he receives or purchases goods
from a child under the age of majority without authorization of the parent or guardian.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of unlawful transactions with children shall be fined
not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 6 months, or
both. A person convicted of a second offense of unlawful transactions with children shall be
fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 6
months, or both."

Section 3. Section 94-5-610, R.C.M. 1947, is amended to read as follows:

"94-5-610. Unlawful possession of intoxicating substance by children. (1) A person under
the age of 18 years commits the offense of possession of intoxicating substance if he knowingly
has in his possession an intoxicating substance other than an alcoholic beverage. A person
under the age of 19 commits the offense of possession of an intoxicating substance if he know-
ingly has in his possession an alcoholic beverage, except that he does not commit the offense
when in the course of his employment it is necessary to possess alcoholic beverages.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of possessing an intoxicating substance shall be fined
not to exceed $50 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 10 days, or
both."

Section 4. Effective date. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this act, if approved by the electors of
the state of Montana, are effective January 1, 1979.

Section 5. Submission to electors. The question of whether this act will become effective
shall be submitted to the electors of the state of Montana at the general election to be held
November 7, 1978, by printing on the ballot the full title, and the following:

FOR raising the legal drinking age to 19.
AGAINST raising the legal drinking age to 19.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

Referendum #28 allows the voters the privilege of raising the legal age for consuming or
possessing alcoholic beverages to 19. It gives voters the right to preserve the best interests of
youth by safeguarding their health, safety and welfare by voting to raise the legal drinking age
to 19. The following points support this contention.

1. Education and alcohol do not mix as can be evidenced by the heavy burdens school dis-
tricts are now trying to deal with. The ready accessibility of intoxicating beverages to our
school students is creating serious problems. When the drinking age was lowered to 18, the
effect was really lowering it to 14 and 15. Eighteen year-old students, for the most part, tend to
socialize with people younger than themselves. The result was an easier availability of alcohol

Page Twenty-four

for those students under 18, and this of course happening at a time when lifetime skills and
habits are being acquired. It is very difficult for schools to fulfill the role of law enforcement
agencies. The time spent in disciplining and enforcing the law would be much better spent on
education. Quality education suffers as a result.

2. Driving and alcohol do not mix. The National Safety Council statistics show that,
nationally, the incidence of drinking in fatal motor vehicle accidents is highest among the 18-19
year age group. There has been a dramatic increase in highway fatalities nationwide since many
states lowered the drinking age. This has made an additional traffic hazard on our highways.

3. Alcoholism in today's youth is increasing. Recent studies indicate over 75% of high
school students drink alcoholic beverages. Another study reveals that drinking starts at an
earlier age than ever before. In Montana, over 70% of the students will become 18 before grad-
uating from high school. The consequence is easy accessibQity of liquor to many of our high
school seniors, as well as students much younger.

4. Other consequences of the lower drinking age are increase in crime, increased litter bug
costs, increased pressures on law enforcement agencies, increased welfare costs and increased
insurance rates.

A "yes" vote on this referendum would take some of the pressures off homes, schools and
society in general. A Majority vote is needed to establish the age of 19 as the legal age for
consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages.

S/ Allen C. Kolstad, Chr.
Esther G. Bengtson
Angela Romain

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

Legislative Referendum No. 74 should be rejected for the same reason as Constitutional
Amendment No. 4. In addition, we believe that raising the drinking age would not be effective.

Minors will continue to have access to alcoholic beverages. That was the case when the
drinking age was 21 and will be the case wherever the drinking age is established. When ques-
tioning teenagers about what they will do if the drinking age is raised, their answer is that they
will get 19 year olds to buy for them.

The problem of teenage drinking is a complex one that does not lend itself to simple an-
swers. Teenage drinking has increased at the same time as society has become more permissive
of other patterns of behavior including increased use of alcohol by adults in general.

The learning of proper social behavior has to be accomplished in our basic social institutions,
the family, our churches, and schools. It is not an easy task. It requires time, effort, and educa-
tion. It requires that young people learn that rights carry with them responsibilities. Raising
the drinking age does nothing to further this effort.

In fact, raising the drinking age will increase the aura surrounding the use of alcoholic
beverages. Young people will be led to believe that there is some special macho quality to drink-
ing since it would be denied to the youngest adults.

Compounding the 'forbidden fruit' effect of raising the drinking age, would be an increase in
cynicism among the young concerning our legal system. That one group of adults, who can vote
and exercise all other rights, could be denied one right available to others will not improve
respect for the law.

Clearly, the problem of alcohol abuse must be addressed. Referendum No. 74 is window
dressing that does not approach the problem and should be rejected.

S/ Greg Jergeson, Chr.
Bill Baeth
Jim Pasma

Page Twenty-five

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

The arguments stated in favor of Legislative Referendum No. 74, while indicative of posi-
tive motives, simply do not support conclusively the case for raising the drinking age.

To assert that raising the drinking age will improve discipline in our high schools just does
not hold up. Schools have the right and authority to establish standards of conduct for stu-
dents in the classroom and at school functions. What is needed is parental support for teach-
ers and administrators when they are required to discipline a student for misconduct, includ-
ing drinking.

We agree that drinking and driving do not mix. Persons, of any age, who drive while in-
toxicated should be severely and certainly punished.

Alcoholism and the use of alcohol by all age groups has increased recently. The reasons
why teenagers drink, according to the studies cited by the supporters of this referendum,
parallel the reasons adults drink, to relax, for enjoyment, to escape problems, and any number
of other reasons. A positive program of education and training are needed to establish proper
patterns of social behavior.

There are many reasons for increased crime, littering, and welfare. Raising the drinking
age will not reduce that trend unless the underlying disrespect for the rule of law is dealt
with.

For these reasons, we urge rejection of Legislative Referendum No. 74 to raise the drinking
age.

S/ Greg Jergeson, Chr.
WiUiam R. Baeth
Jim Pasma

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

The argument that alcoholic beverages have always been accessible to our youth is not a
valid argument for attempting to protect our young people from early addiction to alcohol.
Certainly to raise the drinking age would make the accessibility to students in our high
schools and junior high schools more difficult. Because a problem is difficult to solve, should
not be a reason to avoid any and all attempts to solve it.

The argument that society has become more permissive of increased drinking of alcoholic
beverages for all ages certainly makes little sense if we are considering what is in the best
interest of our youth. One wrong cannot be corrected with another wrong. Schools, family
and churches find it difficult to educate and influence young people regarding the effects of
alcohol when it is legal to drink at the age of 18. A "get tough" policy has proved to be more
effective than rationalization in many cases. This is the case in this instance.

Purchase and possession of alcoholic beverages, according to legal experts, is not a right
but a privilege which is accorded, commensurate to the ability to handle the responsibility. It
can be compared with driver's and marriage licenses. One group of adults discriminating
against another is an irrelevant argument.

S/ AUen C. Kolstad, Chr.
Esther G. Bengtson

The form in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election,
November 7, 1978, is as follows:

REFERENDUM NO. 74

Page Twenty-six
AN ACT REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The legal age for consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages in Montana is 18. This
referendum would raise the legal age for consuming or possessing alcoholic beverage to 19. This
referendum also makes it a criminal offense to give or to sell alcoholic beverages to a person
under 19 years of age.

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 4-6-104. 94-5-609, AND 94-5-610. R.C.M. 1947. TO RAISE
THE LEGAL AGE FOR CONSUMING OR POSSESSING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO
NINETEEN AND PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE
ELECTORS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA.

FOR raising the legal drinking age to 19.
AGAINST raising the legal drinking age to 19.

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 75
Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Referendum No. 75 was introduced as Senate Bill No. 130 in the regular session of the 45th
Legislature of the State of Montana. SB 130 passed the Senate by a vote of 44 for and 0
against with 2 members excused and 4 absent. The House of Representatives vote was 70 to 23
in favor of the bill with 2 members excused and 5 absent.

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This referendum will authorize the Montana Legislature to continue to levy a yearly tax of
up to 6 mills on all taxable property for the support of the Montana university system and
other public educational institutions supervised by the board of regents. Authority to levy this
tax is limited to the next 10 years beginning with 1979. Similar provisions giving the legisla-
ture 10 year authority to levy a yearly tax of up to 6 mills for the support of the university sys-
tem and public educational institutions were approved by the voters in 1948, 1958 and 1968.

Page Twenty-seven

AN ACT TO CONTINUE THE FUNDING OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
SUBJECT TO BOARD OF REGENTS' SUPERVISION BY A LEVY OF NOT TO EXCEED
6 MILLS ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY EACH YEAR FOR 10 YEARS AND PROVID-
ING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORS OF THE STATE
OF MONTANA.

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

Section 1. There is a new R.C.M. section numbered 75-8615 that reads as follows:
75-8615. State tax levy — support of public education institutions. 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 1978, the legislature shall levy a property tax of not more than 6 mills on the tax-
able value of all real and personal property each year for 10 years beginning with the year 1979.
. All revenue from this property tax levy shall be appropriated for the support, maintenance, and
improvement of the Montana university system and other public educational institutions sub-
ject to board of regents' supervision.

Section 2. Submission to electorate. The question whether this act will become effective
shall be submitted to the electors of the state of Montana at the general election to be held
November 7, 1978, by printing on the ballot the full title of this act, and the following:

D
D

FOR the 6-mill levy for the support of public educational institutions subject to board
of regents' supervision.

AGAINST the 6-miU levy for the support of public educational institutions subject to
board of regents' supervision.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

In 1948 the people of Montana first authorized the legislature to levy a permissive state-
wide property tax not to exceed 6 mills providing earmarked revenues for broad-based tax
support for the university system. This authorization was for ten years; it was renewed by a
vote of the people in 1958, again in 1968, and is proposed for renewal in 1978.

Every person in the state has a direct or indirect interest in the state's university system,
the structure of higher educational opportunity for Montana youth. The property tax base is
the broadest possible tax base in the state, drawing revenues from the biggest corporations to
the owner of a snowcat!

Montana taxpayers have been generous in supporting education. They know higher educa-
tional systems cost money and that they will somehow be financed, so the question is: Should
higher education be financed, in part, by an earmarked state-wide property tax to which vir-
tually everyone contributes, or should the financing come, in a greater part, from general funds
which are generated from more limited sources, and for which most agencies of state govern-
ment aggressively compete for funding?

We recognize the confusion and uncertainty related to the reappraisal program, changed tax
schedules, and the possible tax dollar effect but point out that the levy is permissive, that the
rate of the levy up to 6 mills is determined by the legislature, and that state money to operate
the system will have to come from either a broad-based property tax or general fund sources.

This earmarked millage source would give a stable base for funding higher education, it is
estimated it will generate about 15 per cent of the operating cost of the six units; other incomes
are student fees, federal and private funds, and other sources.

We think it is fair, right, and proper to ask every taxpayer in the state to share in support of
the university system, and in the language of the new constitution, "other public educational
institutions subject to board of regents' supervision."

Page Twenty-eight

We urge your support and vote for a continuation of quality higher education in Montana by
supporting Referendum 75, as the people of Montana have done for 30 years. It is not a new
tax, it is a continuation of an authorization for the legislature to levy up to 6 mills annually for
a ten-year period. It is a commitment by the present for an investment in the future with ex-
pected dividends for all.

S/ Matt Himsl Chr.
John B. Driscoll
Penny Bullock

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

We oppose Initiative 75 which authorizes the legislature to levy a statewide property tax,
not to exceed 6 mills, which would generate approximately 15% of the university budget, for
the following reasons:

1. This source of funding would not be needed if the curricula, programs, and functions of
the various university units were coordinated to prevent unnecessary overlap between the
units.

2. The persons directly benefiting from the educational opportunities available at the
universities should bear a heavier burden of the cost of providing such benefits. In the case of
actual financial need, student applicants should be screened more closely to determine their
need for government assistance.

3. The proposed levy authorization raises only 15% of the overall university budget,
which could readily be offset by curtailing various programs which do not benefit Montana
students or citizens.

S/ John E. Manley, Chr.
Carl M. Smith

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

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

1) To charge unnecessary duplication among the units of the university system without
being specific makes a response difficult. Yes, there arq,six units instead of one, each unit does
offer basic courses, each has a campus and physical plant, each has a library, each has an area it
serves, etc. We have a commissioner of higher education, a board of regents, faculty and legis-
lative committees all reviewing the possibihty of unnecessary duplication and, if any exists, it
has been found to be minimal. We challenge the opposition to be specific!

2) In response to tight legislative appropriations and rismg costs in general, the Board of
Regents in the past year has increased out-of-state student fees over 40% — in the last 10 years
the figure has increased about 89%; in-state student fees increased about 14% — in the last 10
years the cost for a single student has increased about 70%. Obviously, students are sharing in
the increased costs but they have Umits too!

3) The magnitude of cutting 15% out of the university system operation — a suggested $21
million cut — would be the equivalent of eUminating three units entirely: Northern, Western,
and "Tech" at Butte; or it would be equal to cutting about one-third out of the instructional
costs from all the units of the system! We don't believe any knowledgeable or responsible
person would seriously suggest such action and still feel that the state of Montana was fulfil-
ling its constitutional obligations.

S/ Matt Himsl, Chr.
Penny Bullock

Page Twenty-nine

The form in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election,
November 7, 1978, is as follows:

REFERENDUM NO. 75

AN ACT REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Secretary of State's Explanatory Statement

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This referendum will authorize the Montana Legislature to continue to levy a yearly tax of
up to 6 mills on all taxable property for the support of the Montana university system and
other public educational institutions supervised by the board of regents. Authority to leyy this
tax is limited to the next 10 years beginning with 1979. Similar provisions giving the legisla-
ture 10 year authority to levy a yearly tax of up to 6 mills for the support of the university sys-
tem and public educational institutions were approved by the voters in 1948, 1958 and 1968.

D
D

FOR the 6-mill levy for the support of public educational institutions subject to board
of regents' supervision.

AGAINST the 6-mill levy for the support of public educational institutions subject to
board of regents' supervision.

INITIATIVE NO. 79
Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Page Thirty

state law measures obscenity based on state-wide standards and the degree of public accept-
ance throughout the State. The initiative would allow local governments to adopt obscenity
provisions more restrictive than state law.

AN INITIATIVE ENTITLED: "AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 94-8-110, R.C.M. 1947. TO
ALLOW CITIES, TOWNS OR COUNTIES TO ADOPT OBSCENITY ORDINANCES OR
RESOLUTIONS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN STATE LAW."

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

Section I. Section 94-8-110, R.C.M. 1947, is amended to read as follows: "94-8-110. Ob-
scenity. (1) A person commits the offense of obscenity when, with knowledge of the obscene
nature thereof, he purposely or knowingly:

(a) Sells, delivers or provides, or offers or agrees to sell, deliver or provide any ob-
scene writing, picture, record or other representation or embodiment of the obscene to
anyone under the age of eighteen (18); or

(b) Presents or directs an obscene play, dance or other performance or participates
in that portion thereof which makes it obscene to anyone under the age of eighteen (18);
or

(d) Performs an obscene act or otherwise presents an obscene exhibition of his body
to anyone under the age of eighteen (18); or

(e) Creates, buys, procures or possesses obscene matter or material with the purpose
to disseminate it to anyone under the age of eighteen (18); or

(f) Advertises or otherwise promotes the sale of obscene material or materials repre-
sented or held out by him to be obscene.

(2) A thing is obscene if:

(a) it is a representation or description of perverted ultimate sexual acts, actual or
simulated, or

(b) it is a patently offensive representation or description of normal ultimate sexual
acts, actual or simulated, or

(c) it is a patently offensive representation or description of masturbation, excretory
functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals, and

(d) tiiken as a whole the material:

(i) applying contemporary Montana community standards, appeals to the prurient
interest in sex,

(ii) portrays conduct described in (a), (b), or (c) above in a patently offensive way, and

(iii) lacks serious Uterary, artistic, political or scientific value.

(3) In any prosecution for an offense under this section evidence shall be admissible
to show:

(a) The predominant appeal of the material, and what effect if any, it would probably
have on the behavior of people:

(b) The artistic, literary, scientific, educational or other merits of the material;

(d) Appeal to prurient interest, or absence thereof, in advertising or other promotion
of the material; or

(e) Purpose of the author, creator, publisher or disseminator.

(4) A person convicted of obscenity shall be fined at least five hundred dollars ($500)
but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or imprisoned in the county jail for a
term not to exceed six (6) months, or both.

Page Thirty-one

(5) No city or municiptJ ordinance may be adopted which is more restrictive as to
obscenity than the provisions of this section and section 94-6-110.1.

Cities, towns or counties may adopt ordinances or resolutions which are more
restrictive as to obscenity than the provisions of this section and section 94-8-110.1".
Section 2. Effective date. Section 1 of this act is effective January 1, 1979.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

A "yes" vote for initiative I 79 will allow local cities and communities to control pornog-
raphy and obscenity in their own area.

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the determination of obscenity it to be made by
applying local community standards. This means that whatever material your community de-
cides it will not tolerate need not be tolerated.

Our present Montana obscenity statute specifically denies the right of local control. It
appears that our state law may be in conflict with the U. S. Supreme Court. When questioned
on this matter, the late Senator Lee Metcalf replied, "I would have to agree that it is quite
possible such a conflict exists . . .".

How would this local control be enacted? Our Supreme Court has established that com-
munity standards must express sentiments of the general pubhc. Based on those sentiments,
ordinances could be adopted by your own elected officials.

A common argument is that obscenity cannot be defined. Quite to the contrary, the U. S.
Supreme Court has provided us with the following definition:

"Obscene" means that to the average person applying contemporary community
standards the predominant appeal of the material when taken as a whole is to the
prurient interest. That is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, sadism, or
excretion, which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in the descrip-
tion or representation of such matters and is without redeeming social importance.
Furthermore, the U. S. Supreme Court stated in its landmark obscenity ruling handed down
on June 21, 1973: "This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene materi-
al is unprotected by the First Amendment." This ruling has been consistently upheld by the
Supreme Court.

Montana presently has one of the weakest obscenity laws in the U. S. Passage of this initia-
tive will be the first step in bringing Montana obscenity laws up-to-date. It's time to allow
people to control their own lives and not have their desires dictated for them by pornographers
whose sole motive is the commercial exploitation of human weaknesses.

S/ Robert W. Sharp, Chr.
Gary R. Rose
Don E. Nelson

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

This initiative is an attempt to establish local censorship committees throughout the state
which would be completely unrestricted in how they may forbid your reading or viewing any
material they themselves find unacceptable to their tastes. It is totally inconsistent with all
concepts of your freedom of choice which you now enjoy in this state.

The right of all adults to unrestricted access to information is essential in a free society and
guaranteed to all of us by the Montana Constitution.

Previous attempts to restrict your right to read books, magazines, or newspapers or prevent
you from viewing a movie of your choice have been consistently rejected by the Montana legis-
lature.

Page Thirty-two

A vote against this initiative would allow city and county governments to continue to
operate within their legitimate areas of concern without subjecting them to the continual
harassment of any small group which may wish, however well-intended, to censor books or
movies viewed by any other group in the community. The reading material of adults in private
has never been a major social problem in Montana and we should not now spend our tax dollars
in such a foolish attempt to push our government into the business of deciding what we can
read or view.

Law enforcement is designed to protect our persons and property, not to control our
thoughts. The expenditure of your tax money to finance these local censorship committees to
formulate and then defend such practices in court would be a wasteful diversion of already
badly strained budgets in our criminal justice system.

The Montana Library Association, in opposing this initiative, has stated that it is a "direct
threat to the individual's constitutional rights of freedom of speech, and of the press" and also
"creates a grave danger of censorship of locally unpopular or controversial views." There is no
doubt that it would threaten your right to unrestricted access to all information and this initia-
tive must be soundly defeated.

The current criminal statutes forbid any public display of adult material or the showing or
transferring of such material to minors. The current statutes are sufficient protection for those
people who do not wish to view such material. We should not now publicly finance this attempt
to control the access of such information to others.

TotaUtarian governments keep themselves in power by suppressing unpopular religious or
political beliefs by censoring or labeling information, people, ideas or events as criminal. This
kind of pressure to conform has no place in American Ufe.

This initiative would be an unconstitutional, expensive and unjustified loss of your freedom
of choice. For these reasons, you should vote against Initiative No. 79.

S/ Robert Campbell, Chr.
James W. Zion
Robert W. Hollow
Robert M. Cookingham
Richard Gercken

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

The issue is censorship.

The question is whether or not you will lose your freedom of choice in determining what
you wish to read or view as an adult in Montana.

Your right to read and have full access to all information is threatened by this initiative.

The past practice of banning or burning books is a throw-back to the dark ages when fear
of ideas led to unbelievably cruel censorship which is intolerable in a free state.

Our country was founded on the premise that our free access to all information is essential,
and when the question of censorship committees was presented to Thomas Jefferson, he
responded by saying:

"I am . . . mortified to be told that, in the United States of America ... a question

about the sale of a book can be carried before the criminal magistrate . . . are we to

have a censor who shall say what books may be sold and what we may buy?

Shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to

read? ... It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rationtil beings or

not."

Do not be misled by those who seek to censor. This initiative will allow local censorship
committees to be completely unrestricted in what they choose to allow you to read or see.

Your freedom of choice depends upon your vote against this censorship proposal

S/ Robert J. Campbell, Chr.
Robert W. Hollow
James W. Zion
Robert M. Cookingham
Richard Gercken

Page Thirty-three

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

1-79 will establish a means by which communities can control only hard-core pornography.
All other material is absolutely protected by the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The U. S. Supreme Court has defined hard-core porno and has established guidelines for its
control. These guidelines require the opinions of a majority of the people and definitely will
not allow "local censorship committees".

The present Montana law is based on advice from special interest groups — not the will of
the majority. Tax dollars are now being spent to protect heird-core pornographers in their
greedy attempts to degrade our communities.

Tax dollars are also being spent to control the many crimes that accompany porno shops.
These include: prostitution, dnig abuse, sale of porno to minors, and higher incidence of
assault and rape. Is the price of good laws any higher than the price of bad laws?

All the arguments used by opponents of Initiative 1-79, including the Montana Library
Association, are the same arguments used by pornographers in defending hard-core porno.
When a law forces a state supported library association to side with pornographers. who pro-
mote child pornography, homosexuality, rape, and violence; it is time to change that law.

Initiative 1-79 will not be unconstitutional. Vote for responsibility and local control over
hard-core pornography. Vote For 1-79.

S/ Robert W. Sharp, Chr.
Don E. Nelson

The form in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election,
November 7, 1978, is as follows:

INITIATIVE NO. 79

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This initiative would amend Montana's criminal provisions regarding obscenity. The initia-
tive would adopt a new standard in determining whether material is obscene. A finding of
obscenity would be based on what a local community considers obscene material. Existing
state law measures obscenity based on state-wide standards and the degree of public accept-
ance throughout the State. The initiative would allow local governments to adopt obscenity
provisions more restrictive than the state law.

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 94-8-110. R.C.M. 1947. TO ALLOW CITIES. TOWNS OR
COUNTIES TO ADOPT OBSCENITY ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS MORE RE-
STRICTIVE THAN STATE LAW.

FOR changing the standard applied to determine if material is obscene and allowing
local governments to adopt obscenity laws more restrictive than state law.

AGAINST changing the standard applied to determine if material is obscene and al-
lowing local governments to adopt obscenity laws more restrictive than state law.

Page Thirty-four

INITIATIVE NO. 80

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The initiative would impose rigid restrictions before a nuclear facility could be built.
Restrictions include:

1. Posting a bond equalling not less than 30% of the capital cost of the facility to insure
against Uabihty.

2. A showing radioactive material can be contained with no reasonable chance of escape.

3. Comprehensive testing of similar physical systems in actual operation.

4. Approval by the Board of Natural Resources.

5. Approval by a majority of Montana voters in an election called by initiative or referen-
dum.

The initiative would forbid limitations on the rights of persons to seek compensation for
injuries resulting from operation of the facility.

AN ACT EMPOWERING MONTANA VOTERS TO APPROVE OR REJECT ANY PRO-
POSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY CERTIFIED UNDER THE MONTANA MAJOR
FACILITY SITING ACT; DEFINING TERMS; ESTABLISHING STATE SAFETY AND
FINANCIAL LIABILITY STANDARDS FOR MAJOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES; EXEMPT-
ING MEDICAL AND RESEARCH FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF
EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANS; INVALIDATING EMERGENCY APPROVAL
AUTHORITY FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES; AMENDING SECTION 70-804. REVISED
CODES OF MONTANA, 1947.

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

SECTION 1. There is a new R.C.M. section that reads as follows:

Findings as to nuclear safety — reservation of nuclear facility approval powers to the people.
(1) The people of Montana find that substantial public concern exists regarding nuclear reactors
and other major nuclear facihties, including the following unresolved issues:

(a) the generation of waste from nuclear facilities, which remains a severe radiological
hazard for many thousands of years and for which no means of containment assuring the pro-
tection of future generations exists;

(b) the spending of scarce capital to pay the rapidly increasing costs of nuclear facilities,
preventing the use of that capital to finance renewable energy sources which hold more promise
for supplying useful energy, providing jobs, and holding down energy costs;

(c) the liability of nuclear facilities to sudden castastrophic [sic] accidents which can affect
large areas of the state, thousands of people, and countless future generations;

(d) the refusal of utiUties, industry, and government to assume normal financial responsi-
bility for compensating victims of such nuclear accidents;

(e) the impact of nuclear facihties on the proliferation of nuclear bombs and terrorism;

(f) the increasing pattern of abandonment of used nuclear facihties by their owners, result-
ing in radiological dangers to present and future societies as well as higher public costs for
peri>etual management; and

(g) the detrimental effect of the large uranium import program necessary to the expansion
of nuclear power on American energy independence, defense policy, and economic well being.

(2) Therefore, the people of Montana reserve to themselves the exclusive right to determine
whether major nuclear facihties are built and operated in this state.
SECTION 2. There is a new R.C.M. section that reads as follows:
Definitions. As used in this act, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Nuclear facility" means each plant, unit or other faciUty designed for, or capable of,

Page Thirty-five

(i) generating 50 megawatts of electricity or more by means of nuclear fission,
(ii) converting, enriching, fabricating, or reprocessing uranium minerals or nuclear fuels, or
(iii) storing or disposing of radioactive wastes or materials from a nuclear facility;
(b) "nuclear facility" does not include any small-scale facility used solely for educational,
research, or medical purposes not connected with the commercial generation of energy.

(2) "Facility," as defined in subsection (3) of section 70-803, R.C.M. 1947, is further defined
to include any nucletir facility as defined in subsection (1) (a) of this section.
SECTION 3. Section 70-804, R.C.M. 1947, is amended to read as follows:
70-804. Certificate from board required prior to construction of a facility — exemptions —
approval by popular vote of certificate for nuclefir facility. (1) A person may not commence to
construct a facility in the state without first applying for and obtaining a certificate of environ-
mental compatibility and public need issued with respect to the facility by the board. A faciUty,
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 modifica-
tions 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 facility over which an agency of the fed-
eral 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 phy-
sical construction or in operation on January 1, 1973.

(6) If the board decides to issue a certificate for a nuclear facility, it shall report such recom-
mendation to the applicant and may not issue the certificate until such recommendation is
approved by a majority of the voters in a statewide election called by initiative or referendum
according to the laws of this state.

SECTION 4. There is a new R.C.M. section that reads as follows:

Additional requirements for issuance of a certificate for the siting of a nuclear facility. (1)
The board may not issue a certificate to construct a nuclear facility unless it finds that

(a) no legal limits exist regarding the rights of a person or group of persons to bring suit for
and recover full and just compensation from the designers, manufacturers, distributors,
owners, and/or operators of a nucleeu" facility for damages resulting from the existence or oper-
ation of the facility; and further, that no legal limits exist regarding the total compensation
which may be required from the designers, manufacturers, distributors, owners, and/or opera-
tors of a nuclear facility for damages resulting from the existence or operation of such facility;

(b) the effectiveness of all safety systems, including but not limited to the emergency core
cooling systems, of such nuclear facility has been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the
board, by the comprehensive laboratory testing of substantially similar physical systems in
actual op>eration;

(c) the radioactive materials from such nuclear facilities can be contained with no reasonable
chance, as determined by the board, of intentional or unintentional escape or diversion of such
materials into the natural environment in such manner as to cause substantial or long-term
harm or hazard to present or future generations due to imperfect storage technologies, earth-
quakes or other acts of God, theft, sabotage, acts of war or other social instabilities, or what-
ever other causes the board may deem to be reasonably possible, at any time during which such
materials remain a radiological hazard; and

(d) the owner of such nuclear facility has posted with the board a bond totaling not less than
30 per cent of the total capital cost of the facility, as estimated by the board, to pay for the de-
commissioning of the faciUty and the decontamination of any area contaminated with radio-
active materials due to the existence or operation of the facility in the event the owner fails to

Page Thirty-six

pay the full costs of such decommissioning and decontamination. Excess bond, if any, shall be
refunded to the owner upon demonstration, to the satisfaction of the board, that the site and
environs of the facility pose no radiological danger to present or future generations and that
whatever other conditions the board may deem reasonable have been met.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the owner of a nuclear facility
from full financial responsibility for the decommissioning of such facility and decontamination
of any area contaminated with radioactive materials as a result of the existence or operation of
such facility at any time during which such materials remain a radiological hazard.

SECTION 5. There is a new R.C.M. section that reads as follows:

Annual review of evacuation and emergency medical aid plans. (1) The governor shall an-
nually publish, publicize, and release to the news media and to the appropriate officials of af-
fected communities, in a manner designed to inform residents of the affected communities, the
entire evacuation plan specified in the licensing of each certified nuclear facihty within this
state. Copies of such plan shaU be made available to the public upon request at no more than
the cost of reproduction.

(2) The governor shall establish 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,
the locations of schools, hospitals, and industrial developments, and other factors as requested
by locally elected representatives.

SECTION 6. There is a new R.C.M. section that reads as follows:

Emergency approval authority invalid for nuclear facilities. Notwithstanding the provi-
sions of subsections 70-811 (4) (a) and (4) (b), the board may not waive compliance with any of
the provisions of this act relating to certification of a nuclear facility.

SECTIOf^ 7. Severability. If a part of this act is invahd, all valid parts that are sever-
able from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its
applications, the part remains in effect in all valid appUcations that are severable from the
invalid application.

-~ ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

Initiative No. 80 (a) gives Montana voters power to decide whether nuclear facilities are built
here, and (b) establishes basic safety and liability standards for nucle£u- facilities.

This measure doesn't ban nuclear energy for all time, but neither does it allow nuclear plants
to be built in Montana in the way the nuclear industry and federal government have become
accustomed to doing business. Rather, Initiative 80 protects Montanans from the costly
nuclear mistakes made in other states.

Federal projections indicate future plans to build several nuclear facilities in Montana.
Clearly, state conditions should be established before nuclear plants proliferate. And Montana
citizens should have the right to direct participation in a decision which will vitally affect our
lives for generations to come.

A nuclear plant of commercial size:
—costs well over $1 billion to build;
—uses 25,000 gallons of cooling water per minute, more than Montana's five largest

cities put together, with serious potential impacts on agriculture and fisheries;
—generates thousands of tons of radioactive wastes, ranging from uranium mill tailings
to high-level transuranics (plutonium, for example) requiring thousands of years of
monitoring and maintenance;
— coiftmits Montanans to generations of vigilance guarding a radioactive plant and main-
taining it in safe condition.
Under current federal "regulation," the nuclear industry may legally:

—build a major nuclear plant in Montana without any public participation other than
limited hearings which regulators are free to ignore;

Page Thirty-seven

—refuse to pay more than token compensation, as little as five cents per dollar of

damage, to victims of major nuclear accidents;
—abandon used nuclear facilities to state governments to clean up at enormous public
expense (an abandoned nuclear facility in New York will cost taxpayers at least $600
million to maintain, plus "perpetual care");
—operate nuclear plants whose emergency safety systems haven't passed fundamental

tests required of all other industrial safety equipment;
—produce perpetually dangerous nuclear waste without proven disposal techniques.
If Initiative 80 passes:

—no major nuclear facility could be built in Montana without voter approval;

—owners of nuclear facilities would have to accept normal liability for their accidents —

the same liability now accepted by every other business and individual in Montana;
—reactor emergency systems would have to be proven by laboratory testing under

operating conditions;
—reasonable means of securing radioactive materials against releases likely to cause
"substantial or long-term harm" to present or future generations would have to be
demonstrated;
—owners of nuclear plants would have to advance a bond to pay for dismantling and
cleaning up their facility, refundable when both are safely completed.
Nuclear power consumes 60% of the federal research budget but provides only .3% of our
energy supply. Such an enormous public subsidy effectively prevents development of other
energy options which hold far more promise for meeting our needs, providing jobs, and holding
down energy costs.

Initiative 80 would give the people of Montana power to make the decision on nuclear
energy directly and deserves your "FOR" vote.

S/ Mike A. Males, Chr.
John L. Wilson
Adrienne Bonnet

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

Initiative 80 is a ban on nuclear power production and closes the door on important energy
options for the future of this state. In 1976 Initiative 71 was submitted to the voters in sub-
stantially the same language as this initiative. Montana voters rejected that Initiative by
nearly 60%.

The Initiative pretends to give Montana voters the right to vote on siting of future nuclear
plants in Montana. In actuality. Initiative 80 will ban an important source of energy in this
state. The Board of Natural Resources, under the initiative, is prohibited from certifying a nu-
clear facility unless all liability limits on operators, manufacturers, and distributors for injury
and damages are removed. The present maximum limits are 560 million dollars and will in-
crease to over one billion as additional nuclear facilities become operative. No nuclear accident
in a power plant has ever occured. However, since no accident, however unlikely is ever com-
pletely insurable, there is no likelihood that Congress will remove all limitations for the benefit
of one state. Nuclear power is the safest and cheapest energy technology we have today. The
safety record of nuclear power is unmatched by any other available source.

The Initiative has no machinery for presenting the matter to a vote to the people. Current
law regarding initiatives and referendums in this state prohibit voting on special laws, such as
the siting of a single electrical production plant.

A nuclear power plant to be certified in Montana under the Initiative would require that in
addition to the current exhaustive examination by the nuclesu- regulatory commission, the
Board would have to insure that such plants had been proven safe in "actual operation."

This forces Montana to create a duplication of programs already in operation by the Federal
government to analyze and evaluate all aspects of nuclear power plants in addition to full scale

Page Thirty-eight

testing. The Montana Major Facilities Act already provides ample protection by requiring
nuclear and other such power plants to be analyzed by all impacts including environmental and
safety factors of such plants.

The Initiative would add nothing to the most stringent Facilities Siting Act in the United
States.

Public participation in developing an energy policy in Montana is important, but the impos-
sible restrictions imposed by Initiative 80 — including insuring against "Acts of God, Acts of
War, Government and social instability and other causes" are impossible to achieve and there-
fore public participation through initiatives or referendums will effectively be prohibited by this
Initiative.

Montana needs to keep its future energy options open. The state now has ample resources
for its foreseeable power needs, and no nuclear plants have been seriously proposed by private
individuals or the Federal government in Montana.

In 1976 the Montana Supreme Court ruled that this Initiative was a ban on nuclear power
plants. Montanans voted against this.

If Montanans wish to keep their energy options open they must vote against Initiative 80.

8/ William J. Wenzel
Joseph W. Duffy
Russ Cox

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

Initiative 80 is a total ban which cuts off important energy options. It does not grant
voters any power to decide about nuclear facilities. No plans exist to build any facilities in
Montana.

Montana has the strictest Facilities Siting Act in the country. Also, over 30 federal agen-
cies must approve every nuclear plant after exhaustive public hearings.

All modem power plants are expensive to build. Proponents of Initiative 80 make broad,
misleading statements which are unsupported by 20 years of experience with nuclear power.

Contrary to the Proponent's claims, the nuclear industry's safety record is unsurpassed by
any industry. Nevertheless, it offers the highest dollar amount of public protection through
insurance of any industry — a no-fault plan which guarantees compensation — and is unprece-
dented in U. S. history. Nuclear plants are engineered with the highest level of safety systems
and they are constantly tested and upgraded. No significant accident has ever occurred. No
nuclear facility has ever been abandoned as Proponents claim.

Existing technology has solved all nuclear waste management problems.

Nuclear power does not consume 60% of federal research budget. More federal money is
spent in solar research than nuclear. Nuclear power provides up to 25% of the electric power
in many parts of the country today, and best scientific estimates are that solar power may
only provide 2% of our energy needs by the year 2000.

Initiative 80 would ban an important energy option and could impose serious energy short-
ages for future generations of Montanans. _, „,.„. ^ ,,,

8/ Wilham J. Wenzel

Jack Moore
Russ Cox
Joseph W. Duffy

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

The best rebuttal to opponents' arguments is simply to read the text of Initiative 80. The
opposition arguments are unfounded and misleading. Contrary to their objections. Initiative
80:

1. Does not "ban" nuclear power. It does require:

a. normal owner liability,

b. reasonable assurance against "substantial or long-term harm,"

Page Thirty-nine

c. emergency equipment validation,

d. voter approval

2. Does not duplicate federal rules. Federal regulations, for example, allowed industry to
abandon a nuclear facility in New York, sticking taxpayers with $600 million cleanup costs.
Such an abandonment in Montana, without Initiative 80 's bonding protection, would cost the
average state taxpayer $3,000.

3. Does not require "insuring" against "acts of God," etc. This opposition argument is
an intentionally misleading jumble of two unrelated sections.

4. Does not "close the door" on energy options. It does make nuclear facilities meet
standards common to all other industries. It does give Montanans power to choose which
doors they want to open to supply future energy needs.

Nuclear accidents have occurred. One widely -reported example is the $150 million nuclear
fuel meltdown in Detroit's Fermi reactor.

Nuclear power is not cheap. Nuclear power's immense funding requirements and long-term
costs are "closing the^oor" on more viable energy options. MHD (a process which doubles
electricity yield from coal while reducing emissions), solar, and conservation research com-
bined receive less funding than nuclear waste research alone.

Montanans should decide our energy future. Read the text of Initiative 80, printed in this
pamphlet, and decide for yourself.

S/ Mike A. Males, Chr.
John L. Wilson
Adrienne Bonnet

The form in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election,
November 7, 1978, is as follows:

INITIATIVE NO. 80

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The initiative would impose rigid restrictions before a nuclear facility could be built.
Restrictions include:

1. Posting a bond equalling not less than 30% of the capital cost of the facility to insure
against liability.

2. A showing radioactive material can be contained with no reasonable chance of escape.

3. Comprehensive testing of similar physical systems in actual operation.

4. Approval by the Board of Natural Resources.

5. Approval by a majority of Montana voters in an election called by initiative or refer-
endum.

The initiative would forbit limitations on the rights of persons to seek compensation for
injuries resulting from operation of the facility.

Page Forty

AN ACT EMPOWERING MONTANA VOTERS TO APPROVE OR REJECT ANY PRO-
POSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY CERTIFIED UNDER THE MONTANA MAJOR
FACILITY SITING ACT; DEFINING TERMS; ESTABLISHING STATE SAFETY AND
FINANCIAL LIABILITY STANDARDS FOE MAJOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES; EXEMPT-
ING MEDICAL AND RESEARCH FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF
EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANS; INVALIDATING EMERGENCY APPROVAL
AUTHORITY FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES; AMENDING SECTION 70-804, REVISED
CODES OF MONTANA. 1947.

FOR giving Montana voters power to approve or reject any proposed major nuclear
power facility and establishing nuclear safety and liability standards

□ AGAINST giving Montana voters power to approve or reject any proposed
nuclear power facility and establishing nuclear safety and liabiUty standards

major

INITIATIVE NO. 81

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This initiative would amend the Montana liquor law to allow the private sale of table wine
and make wine available in more locations. Distributors of table wine would be licensed by the
Department of Revenue. All licensed retailers would be allowed to purchase table wine from
any licensed distributor, similar to the present system of beer distribution. Grocery stores and
drug stores would be allowed to obtain retail Ucenses for the sale of table wine.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING GROCERY STORES AND DRUG STORES TO SELL TABLE
WINE FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION; REVISING CONTROL AND MARKETING
POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO TABLE WINE; ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF
WHOLESALING TABLE WINE BY LICENSING TABLE WINE DISTRIBUTORS; IM-
POSING A TAX ON TABLE WINE; AMENDING SECTIONS 4-1-107. 4-2-204. 4-3-102, 4-4-
201 AND 4-4-401. R.C.M. 1947; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

Section 1. There is a new section in Title 4. RCM 1947, that reads as follows:

The public policy of the state of Montana is to retain a complete monopoly by the state over
the acquisition, importation and distribution of wine containing more than 14% alcohol by
volume but to regulate and control the acquisition, importation and distribution of table wine
contiiining not more than 14% alcohol by volume in a manner paralleling the regulation and
control of importation, acquisition and distribution of beer within this state. When the words
"table wine" are used in this act in either the singular or plural they refer only to wine contain-
ing not more than 14% alcohol by volume.

Section 2. Section 4-1-107. RCM 1947. is amended to read as follows:

"4-1-107. Definitions. As used in this code:

"(1) 'Agency agreement' means an agreement between the department and a person ap-
pointed to sell liquor as a commission merchant, rather than as an employee.

"(2) 'Alcohol' means ethyl alcohol, also called ethanol or the hydrated oxide of ethyl.

"(3) 'Alcoholic beverage' means a compound produced and sold for human consumption as a
drink that contains more than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of alcohol by volume.

Page Forty-one

"(4) 'Beer' means a malt beverage containing not more than seven percent (7%) of alcohol
by weight.

"(5) 'Brewer' means a person who produces malt beverages.

"(6) 'Department' means the Montana department of revenue.

"(7) 'Immediate family' means a spouse, dependent children, or dependent parents.

"(8) 'Industrial use' means a use described as industrial use by the Federal Alcohol Ad-
ministration Act and the federal rules and regulations of 27 CRF.

"(9) 'Liquor' means an alcoholic beverage except beer and table wine.

"(10) 'Malt beverage' means an alcoholic beverage made by the fermentation of an infusion
or decoction, or a combination of both, in potable brewing water, of malted barley with or with-
out hops or their parts, or their products, and with or without other malted cereals and with or
without the addition of unmalted or prepared cereals, other carbohydrates or products prepared
therefrom, and with or without other wholesome products suitable for human food consump-
tion.

"(11) 'Package' means a container or receptacle used for holding an alcoholic beverage.

"(12) 'Proof gallon' means a U. S. gallon of liquor at sixty degrees on the Fahrenheit scale
that contains fifty percent (50%) of alcohol by volume.

"(13) 'Public place' means a place, building, or conveyance to which the public has or may be
permitted to have access and any place of public resort.

"(14) 'Residence' means a building, part of a building where a person resides, but does not
include any part of a building that is not actually and exclusively used as a private residence.

"(15) 'Rules and regulations' means rules and regulations published by the department
pursuant to this act.

"(16) 'State liquor facility' means a facility owned or under control of the department for the
purpose of receiving, storing, transporting, or selling alcoholic beverages.

"(17) 'State liquor store' means a retail store operated by the department in accordance
with this code for the purpose of selling distilled spirits and wines containing more than 14%
alcohol by volume.

"(18) 'Storage depot' means a building or structure owned or operated by a brewer at any
point in the state of Montana, off and away from the premises of a brewery, and which
structure is equipped with refrigeration or cooling apparatus for the storage of beer, and from
which a brewer may sell or distribute beer as permitted by this code.

"(19) 'Warehouse' means a building or structure owned or operated by a licensed wholesaler
for the receiving, storage and distribution of beer or table wine as permitted by this code.

"(20) 'Wine' means an alcoholic beverage made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of
the juice of sound, ripe, fruit or other agricultural products without addition or abstraction,
except as may occur in the usual cellar treatment of clarifying and aging and that contains not
less than seven percent (7%) nor more than twenty-four percent (24%) of alcohol by volume.
Wine may be ameliorated to correct natural deficiencies, sweetened and fortified in accordance
with applicable federal regulations and the customs and practices of the industry. Other al-
coholic beverages not defined as above but made in the manner of wine, labeled and sold as
wine in accordance with federal regulations are also wine.

"(21) 'Table wine' means wine as defined above which contains not more than 14% alcohol
by volume.

Section 3. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
Winery and importer registration. Any winery or importer of table wines which holds the
appropriate license from the United States of America and which desires to distribute its table
wines within this state shall apply to the department of revenue for registration on forms to be
prepared and furnished by the department. Each winery wiU furnish the department with a
copy of each conteuner label currently used by the winery on its products imported into Mon-
tana. The department shall require such winery or importer to agree to furnish monthly and
other reports concerning quantities and prices of table wine it ships into the state, names and
addresses of consignees, and such other information as the department may determine to be

Page Forty-two

necessary to assure importation and distribution of table wines within this state conform to the
requirements of this act. No winery or importer of table wines shall ship table wines into this
state until such registration is granted by the department; and such registration may be can-
celled or suspended by the department upon a finding after notice and hearing that the
registrant has not complied with the terms of its registration.

Section 4. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
Wine distributor's license — records. (1) Any person desiring to sell and distribute table
wine at wholesale to retailers under the provisions of this code shall apply to the department of
revenue for a license to do so and shall tender with his application the annual license fee of $400
and the department may issue licenses to qualified applicants in accordance with the provisions
of this code. AU table wine distributors' licenses issued in any year shall expire on the 30th day
of June at midnight of such year. No license fee may be imposed upon table wine distributors
by a municipality or any other political subdivision of the state. The license shall be at all times
prominently displayed in the place of business of such table wine distributor.

To qualify for a table wine distributor's license the applicant shall be a resident of Montana;
provided, however, any individual or partnership which has been licensed as a table wine distri-
butor may, upon incorporation in accordance with the laws of Montana, transfer such Ucense to
the corporation if a majority of the capital stock thereof is held by said individual or the mem-
bers of said partnership; or if applicant is a foreign corporation said corporation shall be
authorized to do business in Montana; and said applicant shall have a fixed place of business,
sufficient capital, the facihties, storehouse, receiving house or warehouse for the receiving of,
storage, handling, and moving of table wine in large and jobbing quantities for distribution and
sale in original packages to other licensed table wine distributors or licensed retailers. Each
table wine distributor shall be entitled to only one (1) wholesale table wine license, which license
shall be issued for his principal place of business in Montana; a duplicate license may be issued
for one (1) subwarehouse only in Montana for each table wine distributor's license, which said
duplicate license shall at all times be prominently displayed at said subwarehouse. A table wine
distributor may also hold a license to sell beer at wholesale but shall not hold or have any in-
terest, direct or indirect, in any license to sell beer, wine, or Uquor at retail.

All table wine manufactured outside of the state of Montana and shipped into Montana shall
be consigned to and shipped to a licensed table wine distributor, and by him unloaded into his
warehouse in Montana or subwarehouse in Montana; said distributor shall distribute said table
wine from such warehouse or subwarehouse; said distributor shaU keep records at his principal
place of business of aU table wine including the name or kind received, on hand, sold and dis-
tributed; said records may at all times be inspected by any member or representative of the de-
partment of revenue; any table wine which has been shipped into Montana and has not been
shipped to and distributed from a warehouse of a licensed table wine distributor shall be seized
by any peace officer or representative of the department and may be confiscated in the manner
as provided for the confiscation of intoxicating liquor.

Section 5. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
To whom table wine distributor may sell. A table wine distributor may sell and deliver table
wine purchased or acquired by him to another table wine distributor, retailer, or common
carrier which holds a license issued by the department of revenue. It shall be unlawful for any
table wine distributor to sell, deliver or give away any table wine to be consumed on such dis-
tributor's premises or to give, sell, deliver, or distribute any table wine purchased or acquired
by him to the public.

Section 6. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
Monthly report of table wine distributor. Every licensed table wine distributor shall, on or
before the fifteenth day of each month, make an exact return to the department of revenue of
the amount of table wine purchased or acquired by him during the previous month, the amount
of table wine sold and delivered by him during the previous month, and the amount of in-
ventory on hand in the manner and form as shall be prescribed by the department, and the
department shall have the right at any time to make an examination of the said table wine
distributor's books and of his premises, and otherwise check the accuracy of such return or to
check the alcoholic content of table wine which he may have on hand.

Page Forty-three

Section 7. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
Carriers' reports of table wine transported. Every railroad, motor carrier and airline trans-
porting table wine manufactured out of this state from points outside this state and delivering
to points within this state shall, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, make an exact
return to the department of revenue of the amount of such table wine so transported and
delivered by such railroad, motor carrier, or airline during the previous month, and shall state
in such return the name and address of the consignor and consignee, the date of delivery and
the amount delivered.

Section 8. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
Financial interest in retailers prohibited. No winery or table wine distributor shall advance
or loan money to, or furnish money for, or pay for or on behalf of any retailer, for any license or
tax which may be required to be paid by any retailer, and no winery or table wine distributor
shall be financially interested, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or operation of the
business of a retailer. A winery or table wine distributor shall be deemed to have such a finan-
cial interest if (1) such winery or table wine distributor owns or holds any interest in or a lien or
mortgage against the retailer or his premises; or (2) if such winery or table wine distributor is
under any contract with a retailer concerning future purchases and/ or sale or merchandise by
one from or to the other; or (3) if such table wine distributor extends more than seven days'
credit to a retail licensee or furnishes to any retail licensee any furniture, fixtures, or equipment
to be used in the dispensation or sale of table wine; or (4) if any retailer holds an interest as a
stockholder, or otherwise, in the business of the table wine distributor.

Section 9. There is a new section in Title 4, RCM 1947, that reads as follows:
Tax on Wine. A tax of seventy-five cents (75c) per gallon is hereby levied and imposed on
table wine imported by any table wine distributor, and such tax shall be paid by the table wine
distributor by the 15th of the month following receipt of the table wine at the table wine dis-
tributor's warehouse. The tax computed and paid in accordance with this section shedl be the
only tax imposed by the state or any of its subdivisions, including cities and towns, and it shall
be distributed in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.

Section 10. Section 4-2-204, RCM 1947, is amended to read as follows:
"4-2-204. Department to sell to licensees — posted price. The department may sell through
its stores all kinds of liquor, wine containing more than 14% alcohol by volume, and cordials
kept in stock to licensees licensed under this code at the posted price thereof in the store in
which the liquor is sold. All sales shall be upon a cash basis. The posted price means the retail
price of such liquor as fixed and determined by the department and in addition thereto an
excise and license tax as provided in this code.

Section 11. Section 4-3-102, RCM 1947, is amended to read as follows:
"4-3-102. Liquor container must have been sealed with official seal. Except in the case of—
"(a) liquor imported by the state, or by the department; or

"(b) liquor had and kept by a person, and in a place and manner referred to in section 4-1-
202; or

"(c) beerj^ and malt liquor, and table wine lawfully had or kept under this code; or
"(d) any liquor kept for sale by a druggist under this code no liquor shall be kept or had by
any person within the state unless the package, not including a decanter or other receptacle
containing the liquor for immediate consumption, in which the liquor is contained has, while
containing that liquor, been sealed with the official seal prescribed under this code."

Section 12. Section 4-4-201, RCM 1947, is amended to read as follows:
"4-4-201. Issuance of retail beer licenses — limit on number of retail licenses — wine license
amendments — off-premises consumption. (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a license to
sell beer at retail or beer and wine at retail, in accordance with the provisions of this code and
the rules of the department, may be issued to any person, firm, or corporation who is approved
by the dep£irtment as a fit and proper person, firm, or corporation to sell beer, except that:

"(a) the number of retail beer licenses that the department may issue for premises situated
within incorporated cities and incorporated towns and within a distance of 5 miles from the

Page Forty-four

corporate limits of such cities and towns ^all be determined on the basis of population as
shown by the most recent official United States census authorized by congress, as follows:

"(i) in incorporated towns of 500 inhabitants or less and within a distance of 5 miles from
the corporate limits of such towns, not more than one retail beer license which may not be
used in conjunction with a retail all-beverages license;

"(ii) in incorporated cities and incorporated towns of more than 500 inhabitants and not
over 2,000 inhabitants and within a distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits of such cities
or towns, one beer license for each 500 inhabitants which may not be used in conjunction with
retail all-beverages licenses;

"(iii) in incorporated cities of over 2,000 inhabitants and within a distance of 5 miles from
the corporate limits of such cities, two additional retail beer licenses for the first 2,000 in-
habitants or major fraction thereof and one additional retail beer license for each additional
2,000 inhabitants which may not be used in conjunction with retail all-beverages licenses;

"(b) the number of the inhabitants in such cities and towns, exclusive of the number of in-
habitants residing within a distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits thereof, shall govern
the number of retail beer licenses that may be issued for use within such cities and towns and
within a distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits thereof. If two or more incorporated
municipalities are situated within a distance of 5 miles from each other, the total number of
retail beer licenses that may be issued for use in both of such municipalities and within a dis-
tance of 5 miles from their respective corporate limits shall be determined on the basis of the
combined populations of both of such municipalities and may not exceed the foregoing limita-
tions. The distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits of any incorporated city or incorporated
town shall be measured in a straight line from the nearest entrance of the premises proposed for
licensing to the nearest corporate boundary of such city or town.

"(c) retail beer licenses of issue on March 7, 1947, and which are in excess of the foregoing
limitations shall be renewable, but no new licenses may be issued in violation of such limita-
tions;

"(d) such limitations do not prevent the issuance of a nontransferable and nonassignable
retail beer license to a post of nationally chartered veterans' organization or a lodge of a recog-
nized national fraternal organization if such veterans' or fraternal organization has been in
existence for a period of 5 years or more prior to January 1, 1949;

"(e) the number of retail beer licenses that the department may issue for use at premises
situated outside of any incorporated city or incorporated town and outside of the area within a
distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits thereof orior use at premises situated within any
incorporated town shfill be as determined by the department in the exercise of its sound dis-
cretion, except that no retail beer license may be issued for any premises so situated unless the
department determines that the issuance of such license is required by public convenience and
necessity.

"(2) The cities and incorporated towns may enact ordinances defining certain areas in the
cities and town where alcoholic beverages may or may not be sold. No incorporated city or
incorporated town may by ordinance restrict the number of licenses that the department may
issue. However, no retail license may be issued by the deptirtment for any premises situated
within any zone or such city or town where the sale of beer or liquor is prohibited by ordinance,
a certified copy of which has been filed with the department. The department may deny the
issuance of a retail beer or all-beverages license if it determines that the premises proposed for
licensing are off regular police beats and cannot be properly policed by local authorities.

"(3) A person holding a license to sell beer for consumption on the premises at retail may
apply to the department for an amendment to the license permitting the holder to sell wine as
well as beer. The division may issue such amendment if it finds, on a satisfactory showing by
the applicant, that the sale of wine for consumption on the premises would be supplementary to
a restaurant or prepared-food business. A person holding a beer-and-wine license may sell wine
for consumption on the premises. lie may buy wine only at retail from the department. Non-
retention of the beer license, for whatever reason, shall mean automatic loss of the wine amend-
ment license.

Page Forty-five

"(4) A retail license to sell beer or table wine, or both, in the original packages for off-
premises consumption only may be issued to any person, firm, or corporation who is approved
by the department as a fit and proper person, firm, corporation to sell beer or table wine, or
both, and whose premises proposed for licensing are operated as a bona fide grocery store or a
drugstore licensed as a pharmacy. The number of such licenses that the department may issue
is not limited by the provisions of subsection (1) of this section but shall be determined by the
department in the exercise of its sound discretion, and the department may in the exercise of its
sound discretion grant or deny any application for any such license or suspend or revoke any
such Ucense for cause."

Section 13. Section 4-4-401, RCM 1947, is amended to read as follows:

"(1) (a) Each beer licensee, licensed to sell either beer or table wine only, or both beer and
table wine, under the provisions of this code, shall pay an annual license fee as follows:

"(i) each brewer, wherever located, whose product is sold or offered for sale within the
state, $500; for each storage depot, $400.

"(ii) each beer wholesaler, $400; each table wine distributor, $400.

"(iii) each beer retailer, $200; with a wine license amendment, an additional $200.

"(iv) for a license to sell beer at retail for off-premises consumption only, the same as a retail
beer license; for a license to sell table wine at retail for off-premises consumption only, either
alone or in conjunction with beer, $200.

"(v) any unit of a nationally chartered veterans' organization, $50.

"(b) A transfer of any brewer's, beer wholesaler's, table wine distributor 's-or- beer retailer's
or table wine retailer's license may be made on application to the department with the consent
of the department, provided that the transferee qualifies under this code.

"(c) This code shall not be construed or interpreted so as to repeal, amend, modify, change,
or alter any provisions of this code which require beer and table wine manufactured outside of
Montana to be consigned to and shipped to a licensed beer wholesaler or licensed table wine
distributor any by him unloaded into his warehouse or subwarehouse in Montana.

"(2) The permit fee under 4-4-105(1) is computed at the rate of $15 a day for each day beer is
sold at those events lasting 2 or more days but in no case be less than $30.

"(3) The permit fee under 4-4-105(2) is $10 for the sale of beer only or $20 for the sale of all
alcoholic beverages.

"(4) Passenger carrier licenses shaU be issued upon payment by the applicant of an annual
license fee in the sum of $300.

"(5) The annual license fee for a license to sell wine on the premises, when issued as an
amendment to a beer-only license is $200.

"(6) Each licensee licensed under the quotas of 4-4-202 shall pay an annual license fee as
follows:

"(a) except as hereinafter provided, for each license outside of incorporated cities and in-
corporated towns or in incorporated cities and incorporated towns with a population of less
than 2,000, $400.

"(b) except as hereinafter provided, for each license in incorporated cities with a population
of more than 2,000 and less than 5,000, or within a distance of 5 miles thereof, measured in a
straight line from the nearest entrance of the premises to be licensed to the nearest boundary of
such city, $500;

"(c) except as hereinafter provided, for each license in incorporated cities with a population
of more than 5,000 and less than 10,000 or within a distance of 5 miles thereof, measured in a
straight line from the nearest entrance of the premises to be licensed to the nearest boundary of
such city, $650;

"(d) for each license in incorporated cities with a population of 10,000 or more, or within a
distance of 5 miles thereof, measured in a straight line from the nearest entrance of the
premises to be licensed to the nearest boundary of such city, $800;

"(e) the distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits of any incorporated cities and incor-
porated towns is measured in a straight line from the nearest entrance of the premises to be

Page Forty-six

licensed to the nearest boundary of such city or town; and where the premises of the applicant
to be licensed are situated within 5 miles of the corporate boundaries of two or more incorpor-
ated cities or incorporated towns of different populations, the license fee chargeable by the
larger incorporated city or incorporated town applies and shall be paid by the applicant. When
the premises of the applicant to be licensed are situated within an incorporated town or incor-
porated city is without a 5-mile limit, the license fee chargeable by the smaUer incorporated
town or incorporated city applies and shall be paid by the applicant.

"(f) an applicant for the issuance of an original Ucense to be located in areas described in
paragraph (d) of this subsection shall pay a one-time original license fee of $20,000 for any such
license issued. The one-time Ucense fee of $20,000 shall not apply to any transfer or renewal of a
license duly issued prior to July 1, 1974. All licenses, however, are subject to the annual
renewal fee of $800.

"(7) The license fees herein provided for are exclusive of and in addition to other license fees
chargeable in Montana for the sale of liquor, table wine, beer, and malt beverages."

Section 14. Effective date. This act is effective July 1, 1979.

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF THE MEASURE

Table wines have been served and enjoyed for as long as history has been recorded by man.
These versatile beverages come in an almost infinite variety of types and styles to match
almost any food or mood. And today, in most states of this nation, citizens may select and pur-
chase wine where they shop for food.

In Montana, table wine purchasers are prevented from enjoying the variety and selections
available in the marketplace by a severely restricted State liquor monopoly. Inadequate shelf
space, uninformed and indifferent purchasing agents and excessive tax rates prohibit the State
from marketing wines in a manner to satisfy the consumers' desires and convenience.

Because wines are consumer products, they require the retailing opportunities of the open
market to make available a full selection of competitively priced products. If Initiative 81 is
approved by the voters, grocery stores and drug stores will be allowed the sale of table wine to
make it available with other food and convenience products at locations with convenient hours
and accessability.

The passage of this initiative maintains the State's control of distribution and taxation of
table wine through a system that has proven itself effective in handling the sale and distribu-
tion of Beer. Adequate tax revenues will be maintained 'through a tax equal to or higher than
those imposed in the nearby states where table wine sales are allowed in grocery stores. In-
creased sales through larger inventories and greater variety, along with increased employment
in the wine distribution and sales business in Montana, will offset the lower tax rate.

Vote YES on Initiative 81 to allow the consumer product, table wine, to be sold in grocery
stores and drug stores Ucensed as pharmacies.

S/ Leonard B. Eckel Chr.
Mark O. Thompson
Gary L. Davis

ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF THE MEASURE

The arguments against initiative 81 are many and varied.

BUREAUCRACY: In this day of rapidly expanding government, any new legislation must
be carefully scrutinized to determine the additional governmental involvement necessitated and
the subsequent cost to taxpayers. Initiative 81 includes no less than seven new sections to Title
4, along with numerous amendments; government is thereby required to develop numerous new
application forms, Ucensing requirements, inspection reports and procedures along with filing
systems to handle these reports. Reports would be required of retailers, wholesalers, dis-

Page Forty-seven

tributors, railroads, airlines and truckers. There would be an unknown increase in needed per-
sonnel to adequately enforce the many provisions of this proposed legislation.

REVENUE: The proposed tax ceiling of 75<=/gallon will seriously impair Montana's general
fund. Fiscal year 1978 revenue would be reduced from $4,070,615 to $586,455, a loss of almost
$3.5 million. Other losses will occur: $250,000 presently distributed to cities and counties, and
$125,000 to institutions for alcoholism treatment programs.

To offset this loss and merely stay equal with FY 1978 table wine revenue, per capita con-
sumption would have to increase more than six times its present rate — from 782,000 to
4,645,000 gallons — an alarming 6.5 gallons per person, or be replaced by increased income,
property and corporate license taxes.

PROLIFERATION: Proliferation of retail wine outlets and elimination of sales through
state stores, all under the guise of providing greater accessibility and selection, will gravely
weaken control over consumption of this sensitive product and produce chaotic enforcement
problems.

Present state policy rigidly limits sales to outlets catering to adults. Such retailers have
little contact with and offer no inducement to juveniles. Not so with supermarkets and drug
stores. Their teenage customers will find open wine shelves most attractive, and fragmented
law enforcement tempting. Undeniably, increasing wine outlets for adults means increasing
availability to Montana's youth. It's a two-way street.

YOUTH: Being sold along with food products will seem to put a stamp of approval on the
consumption of wine by youth. Because of the types of wines that will be sold (POP), should
this initiative pass, youth will be even more attracted to its use.

Montana cannot afford this. Montana has had a 500% increase of youth admitted to its
abuse centers in the last 5 years, 17% of the clients admitted to DWI schools are under 20
years of age and 17% of family members admitted to treatment programs are under the age of
18.

JOBS: Montana table wine retail sales act would affect the employment of 219 Montanans.
' These people work in the 114 full service state liquor stores.

The state liquor stores are operated on unit count and profit. The state liquor division closes
stores that are not operating at a profit.

The wine sales, which are 20% of the current liquor sales in Montana, would reduce the units
sold or handled by the state stores, which would, in fact, lower sales at the store level and re-
duce jobs or close small stores in rural communities.

8/ David L. Hayden, Chr.
Robert A. Durkee
Donald W. Larson
Robert G. Kokoruda
Loyola M. Copenhaver

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING APPROVAL OF MEASURE

The arguments in favor of initiative 81 are filled with falsehoods and general statements
without a basis in fact to support them.

The argument in favor of this change on the basis of certain other states having done so is
not an adequate basis for action by the citizens of Montana.

The falsity of the claim to the "proven affectiveness" of beer control and regulations,
should be readily apparent to anyone who has investigated the soaring rates of alcoholism.

The youth of our state are a trust whom government has a responsibility toward for their
protection in health and safety matters.

The statement, in the proponents argument, that wine should be "with OTHER foods and
convenience products" is a severe distortion of the realities we see societally resulting from
uncontrolled sale of akoholic beverages. This is especially apparent among the young of our
state.

Page Forty-eight

Montanans would be required to pay higher taxes to compensate for lost revenue under this
legislation. Any advantages would be directed toward out of state interests.

It would appear that the most significant argument put forth by proponents of initiative
81 is that the State Department of Revenue — Liquor Division needs additional shelf space for
wine, and we propose, with the investment of a few dollars, that shelf space be provided. This
would save society the cost of additional counseling, rehabilitation and treatment facilities for
the alcoholism surely to result.

The proponents only desire the convenience.

S/ David L. Hayden, Chr.
Loyoloa M. Copenhaver
Robert A. Durkee
Robert Kokoruda
Donald W. Larson

ARGUMENT REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT ADVOCATING REJECTION OF MEASURE

BUREAUCRACY/REVENUE

State revenues will NOT be seriously affected, contrary to the opponents' inflated 1978
revenue figures and depressed wine sales projections. Sales WILL increase dramaticsiUy, jobs
WILL be created and new tax revenues plus license fees WILL all add to state revenues.

Wine must be removed from a state system which arbitrarily raises taxes to produce some
of the most highly taxed wine products in the United States, depressing sales and encourag-
ing out-of-state purchases. The present state division is outmoded, inefficient, and unneeded,
requiring up to three people to handle a single sales transaction. Instead, wine should be
handled by a free enterprise system which is already controlled by existing agencies.

YOUTH / ALCOHOLISM

The increase in alcohol abuse by youth is a direct reflection of lowering the legal drinking
age to 18. Many school officials and legislators feel the solution is to raise the legal drinking
age to 19.

Research has shown there is NO significant increase in teenage drinking when wine is
available, and in a State Alcohol Profile Information System report published by the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, April, 1978, the F.B.I, select arrest information
for drinking under the influence; drunkeness; liquor laws; and disorderly conduct shows a 10%
LOWER record of alcohol related arrests in the 35 states which have liberalized" their wine
sales laws. Table wines are clearly a drink of moderation not susceptable to abuse.

S/ Leonard B. Eckel, Chr.
Mark O. Thompson

Page Forty-nine

The form in which the measure will be printed on the Official Ballot at the General Election,
November 7, 1978, is as follows:

INITIATIVE NO. 81

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

This initiative would amend the Montana liquor law to allow the private sale of table wine

and make wine available in more locations. Distributors of table wine would be licensed by the

Department of Revenue. All licensed retailers would be allowed to purchase table wine from

.any licensed distributor, similar to the present system of beer distribution. Grocery stores and

drug stores would be allowed to obtain retail licenses for the sale of table wine.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING GROCERY STORES AND DRUG STORES TO SELL TABLE
WINE FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION; REVISING CONTROL AND MARKETING
POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO TABLE WINE; ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF
WHOLESALING TABLE WINE BY LICENSING TABLE WINE DISTRIBUTORS; IM-
POSING A TAX ON TABLE WINE; AMENDING SECTIONS 4-1-107, 4-2-204, 4-3-102, 4-
4-201 AND 4-4-401, R.C.M. 1947; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

D
D

FOR allowing grocery and drug stores to sell table wine similar to the manner in which
beer is sold.

AGAINST allowing grocery and drug stores to sell table wine similar to the manner in
which beer is sold.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Voter information for proposed constitutional amendments, referendums, initiatives ..."

See other formats