Full text of "Voter information pamphlet"

See other formats

MONTANA
STATE

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

324.786

S2v

1982

Montana Stale Library

ride '^ -■-—-' URJJ,

^^^VOTEtoshowit 1982

VOTER
INFORMATION PAMPHLET

rE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

OCT 2 8 1982

MONTANA STATE LlBRARTfi

930 E Lyndal8 Ave.

Helena, Montana 596011

Introduction:

On November 2nd, you have the opportunity to vote on eight ballot issues and for a number of candidates for state and local
offices. This pamphlet is being sent to you and to all other registered voters of the state to assist you in making good decisions
when you enter the voting booth.

The first section of the pamphlet contains the ballot titles for the issues, explanatory and fiscal notes by the office of the
attorney general where required, and arguments "for" and "against" and rebuttals for each issue prepared by proponents or
opponents of the issues. Following these is the complete text of the issue as required by law. Each issue is identified by a logo.
The second section of the pamphlet contains brief biographical statements about and pictures of each of the candidates for
offices at the state and national level. A new feature of the Pamphlet, this information is included to more adequately reflect
the intent, even the name of the Voter Information Pamphlet.

As Secretary of State for the State of Montana, I certify that the text of each ballot issue, ballot title, fiscal and explanatory
notes, arguments and rebuttal statements which appear in this pamphlet is a true and correct copy of the original document
filed in my office.

{^4^ ctiOic^uu*--^

Jim Waltermire
Secretary of State

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

No. 10 2

No. 11 3

No. 12 6

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM

No. 89 9

INITIATIVES

No. 91 14

No. 92 15

No. 94 20

No. 95 23

CANDIDATE PROFILES

U.S. SENATE 26

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
No. 1 (Western) 27

5>;s;s-3 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

;■?;;> ^3 No. 2 (Eastern) .28

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT29

SUPREME COURT 30

STATE GENERAL ELECTION • NOVEMBER 2, 1982

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

NO. 10

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution regarding the invest-
ment of public funds. Currently, public funds may not be invested in private corporate capital stock and school fund
investments must bear a fixed rate of interest. This proposal would eliminate those restructions.

Fiscal Note
Removing these restrictions will allow the legislature to broaden the range of investments in which public funds may
be invested. The fiscal impact of state funds is not known.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VIII,
SECTION 13, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION REMOVING THE RESTRICTION ON INVESTMENT OF
PUBLIC FUNDS IN CORPORATE CAPITAL STOCK AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT SCHOOL FUND INVEST-
MENTS BEAR A FIXED INTEREST RATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section L Article VIII, section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read:
"Section 13. Investment of public funds. ( II The legislature shall provide for a unified investment program for public
funds and provide rules therefor, including supervision of investment of surplus funds of all counties, cities, towns, and
other local governmental entities. Each fund forming a part of the unified investment program shall be separately
identified. Except for monies contributed to rotiromont fundo, no public fundo ehall be invcotod in private corporate
capital stock. The investment program shall be audited at least annually and a report thereof submitted to the governor
and legislature.

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

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

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

(c) Such other safe investments bearing a fixed rate of intoroot as may be provided by law."
Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this amendment is effective January 1, 1983.

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the State of Montana at the
general election to be held November, 1982, by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the following:

D
D

FOR removing'the restriction on investment of public funds in corporate capital stock and the requirement that
school fund investments bear a fixed rate of interest.

AGAINST removing the restriction on investment of public funds in corporate capital stock and the require-
ment that school fund investments bear a fixed rate of interest.

ARGUMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT NO. 10

This constitutional amendment would allow state public
monies and school fund investments to be invested in corporate
capital stock, as well as in bonds and securities bearing a fixed
rate of interest, which are now the only permitted investments.

During periods of high inflation, like we have been ex-
periencing, fixed interest securities tend to lose purchasing
power as fast as or faster than interest is earned, thereby
eroding the real value of state investments. Permitting corpo-
rate capital stock investments gives the State Investment
Board more opportunity and flexibility to preserve and en-
hance the purchasing power of our public monies in today's
uncertain investment climate.

This investment flexibility is already permitted for the state
public employees' and teachers' retirement funds. This con-
stitutional change will not require such corporate capital stock
investments. It only gives the State Investment Board this
option for when, in their best judgment, it best serves the goal
of preserving the value of Montana's public monies.

s/Bill Norman
Ken Nordtvedt

ARGUMENT AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT NO. 10

The state constitution is the fundamental law of the state
and ought not be changed for light or transient causes and it is

not the mission ot state government to collect taxes to provide
economic or financial relief to those having credit problems.

This proposed constitutional amendment would make an
important change in how public funds may be invested. Now
the constitution PROHIBITS the investment of public funds in
PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL STOCK but allows re^
tirement funds to be so invested, however statute (17-6-211)
has restricting limitations on investments with the purpose of
protecting state funds while seeking maximum returns.

Retirement funds are long-term investments and may prop-
erly be placed in selective private corporate capital stock but
public funds, tax generated revenues, which are collected for
current expenditures require short-term placement in as safe a
market as possible.

Obviously, the constitutional writers thought it unwise to
allow public funds to be invested in private corporate capital
stock — that is putting state money in stock in start-up (capi-
tal) issues which are not public issues qualifying on a national
exchange.

We see no compelling reason to remove this restriction for if
removed it might open the door to less conservative practices
that even an annual audit might be too late to save.

The second proposed change would eliminate the require-
ment that the interest on school funds earn a fixed rate as
provided by law. The legislature can change the interest rate
as conditions indicate and, again, we see no compelling reason

-2-

to change the constitutional language.

State funds are public funds managed with a special obliga-
tion to protect the security of the funds and the safety of the
investments and requires personal, statutory, and constitu-
tional support. We see it a mistake to relax the restrictions and
urge voting against removing the constitutional restrictions.

s/Matt Himsl
Francis Bardanouve

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 10

Writers of the argument against Constitutional Amend-
ment No. 10 indicated that they would not write a rebuttal of
the Argument for Constitional Amendment No. 10.

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 10

Some state public monies are held for long term. The state's
responsibility to maintain the true purchasing power of these

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

funds can only be met during inflationary periods by permit-
ting investments in capital stock which can experience growth.
Fixed interest securities inevitably lose value in such times.
We are presently not protecting the value of our interest-
bearing public funds. At seven percent inflation the valueof
bonds is cut in half every ten years. This amendment will give
the State Board of Investments more ability to do their job.

The State Board of Investments under this proposed
amendment may invest in blue chip capital stocks as it now can
with the various retirement funds. This amendment is not a
license to speculate in unlisted securities as the opponents
claim.

If the state monies and school monies, held in trust for future
Montanans, are worth maintaining in real purchasing power,
we urge your support of this constitutional amendment which
improves the opportunity of the state to carry out this trust.

s/Bill Norman. Chairman
Ken Nordtvedt
Jack Stevens

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 10

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution regarding the invest-
ment of public funds. Currently public funds may not be invested in private corporate capital stock and school fund
investments must bear a fixed rate of interest. This proposal would eliminate those restrictions.

FISCAL NOTE
REMOVING THESE RESTRICTIONS WILL ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO BROADEN THE RANGE OF IN-
VESTMENTS IN WHICH PUBLIC FUNDS MAY BE INVESTED. THE FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE FUNDS IS NOT
KNOWN.

I I FOR removing the restriction on investment of public funds in corporate capital stock and the requirement that

school fund investments bear a fixed rate of interest.

AGAINST removing the restriction on investment of public funds in corporate capital stock and the requirement
that school fund investments bear a fixed rate of interest.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

NO. 11

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to require the legislature
to meet yearly. In odd-numbered years, the legislature would meet for not more than 60 days and would consider
legislation on all subjects except appropriations. In even-numbered years, the legislature would meet for not more than
45 days and would be limited to considering revenue and appropriations matters. Legislation on excluded subjects could
be considered if two-thirds of the members of either house voted to introduce such a bill. Currently the legislature meets
every other year for not more than 90 days.

Fiscal Note

The cost of legislators' salaries, expenses and staff for the present 90 day legislative session is approximately $3.2
million. These costs would increase about $500,000 if the legislature were to meet in yearly sessions totaling 105 days
during the same two year period.

-3-

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V,
SECTION 6 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL MEET IN
ANNUAL SESSIONS FOR 60 LEGISLATIVE DAYS IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS AND 45 LEGISLATIVE DAYS
IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS AND TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON THE BUSINESS THAT MAY BE CON-
DUCTED IN EACH RESPECTIVE SESSION; AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

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

"Section 6. Sessions. The legislature shall be a continuous body for 2-year periods beginning when the newly elected
members take office as may be determined by the legislature. The legislature shall meet once a year in a regular session
of not more than 60 legislative days in odd-numbered years and of not more than 45 legislative days in even-numbered
years. The regular session in odd-numbered years shall be limited to consideration of legislation not relating to
appropriations, except that legislation relating to appropriations may be considered if approved for introduction bya
two-thirds vote of the members of either house. The regular session in even-numbered years shall be limited to
consideration of legislation relating to revenue and appropriations, except that legislation not relating to revenue or
appropriations may be considered if approved for introduction by a two-thirds vote of the members of either house. Any
legislature may increase the limit on the length of any subsequent session. The legislature may be convened in special
sessions by the governor or at the written request of a majority of the members."

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this amendment shall be effective January 1, 1984.

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the state of Montana at the
general election to be held in November 1982, by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the following:

I I FOR annual legislative sessions.

I I AGAINST annual legislative sessions.

ARGUMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT NO. 11

Constitutional Amendment Eleven provides for a sensible,
businesslike approach to conducting the business of the legis-
lature. It would save the state and its taxpayers money. It
would result in a more cost effective, accountable and respon-
sive legislative process.
Cll provides for limited annual sessions. The regular ses-
sion of not more than 60 days would be limited to legislation
not related to appropriations. The regular session of not
more than 45 days would be limited to consideration of
legislation relating to appropriation and revenue.
The Limitations are sensible. A 2/3rds vote of either house
would be necessary to open up a session for the consideration
of legislation outside the limitation set for that session.
Legislative history clearly shows that, except for minor pro-
cedural questions, a 2/3rds vote is difficult to obtain. Still,
the Legislature would have the flexibility it needs to respon-
sibly address emergencies or other serious problems.
Limited Annual Sessions would save money. Without regu-
larly scheduled annual meetings of the legislature, the need
for costly special sessions will increase. The history of the
present legislature is instructive. It has met 90 days in
regular session. It has met 15 days in two special sessions at
a cost to taxpayers of $441,000. A third special session was
seriously contemplated. The increasing number of complex
problems facing state government requires greater legisla-
tive attention. To continue to address these problems sporad-
ically in costly special sessions is bad management and poor
economics. The costs of doing so will soon exceed the cost of
limited annual sessions.

Limited Annual Sessions would improve the accountability
of the legislature. All legislators could become directly in-
volved in the development and adoption of the state budget.
This increased focus and involvement would contribute to a
more knowledgeable, accountable legislature, particularly
on matters of finance, taxation and budget.
In addition, incumbent legislators would be running for re-
election almost immediately after each appropriations - re-
venue session. The proximity of the legislative session con-
ducted expressly to make decisions about raising and spend-
ing tax dollars to the re-election campaigns of legislators
who have just made those decisions would serve to increase
legislative accountability. Finally, legislators would hold
office between sessions, increasing the opportunities for con-
stituent input in non-election years.

Limited annual sessions would give the legislature better
control over the spending of taxpayer dollars. Because the
legislature is not in session for 20 of the 24 months for which
it is elected, the executive branch is able to appropriate
substantial sums of money without adequate legislative con-
trol.

Limited annual sessions would give the legislature the
means to make sure that taxpayers are fully represented
when their tax dollars are at stake.

The limited annual sessions proposal makes good fiscal and
political sense. It also makes good management sense be-
cause it would enable legislators to focus virtually all their
attention on budget matters in one session and on general
legislation in another. This would result in a more cost-
effective, accountable and response legislative process.

s/Sen. Lawrence Stimatz, Chairman
John Vincent
Bob Brown

ARGUMENT AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT NO. 11

The people of Montana in an initiative promoted by them in
1974 voted against annual sessions.

The Montana Legislature is now trying to reverse this by the
referendum process and establish annual sessions in direct
conflict to the previous vote of the people.

The reasons today for opposing annual session's are as valid
and even stronger than they were in 1974 when the people
voted against them. Here are some of the major ones:

1. We need to maintain our citizen legislature as opposed to
professional legislators.

We need men and women legislators from all walks of life
including those with hands that are rough because they
must be used to make a living.

We won't have many of the latter if we have annual sessions
as they just won't be able to take time off.

2. Annual sessions will move us toward professional legis-
lators who will spend much of their time listening to lob-
byists and state department and bureau heads who all want
more money and/or power.

3. Annual sessions will lead to more and more bills with more
and more cost and legislative meddling.

This was proven by Montana's one experience with annual
sessions in 1973 and 1974 when 2970 bills were introduced.

By contrast 1359 bills (less than half) were introduced in
the last regular biennial session of 1981.

4. The State Office of Budget and Program Planning esti-
mates that annual sessions will cost taxpayers about
$250,000 a year more. This is for legislative cost only. It
does not include the millions of more tax dollars that would
be required to staff and administer the additional measures
approved in annual sessions.

Nor does it include the time taken and money spent by
Montana citizens who would have to come to Helena to
testify on the greatly expanded number of measures prop-
osed by legislators.

5. This proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 11 gives the
impression that the legislative session's are required to be
restricted to only certain subjects at each annual session.
The fact is that under this amendment only 34 senators or
67 representatives could open the session to anything they
wish.

In conclusion, annual sessions might be nice for paid lob-
byists, Helena businesses and for those legislators who enjoy
the political life.

But it would increase the cost, harassment and concerns for
people across the State of Montana who have already said by
ballot that they don't need or want annual sessions.
* s/Jack E. Gait, Chairman

■Walter R. Sales
Ken Byerly

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 11

The words "limited sessions" are used again and again by
those who want annual sessions. But anyone familiar with the
legislative process knows that legislators can easily extend the
length of the sessions and increase the number of bills intro-
duced.

So, under the proposed Constitutional Amendment 11, we
would have annual sessions instead of every two years, and
these annual sessions could be extended easily to last longer,
include more bills and thus increase government (taxes) and
harassment even more.

The annual session proposal in no way restricts the calling of
other special sessions so the people of Montana will still be
faced with the possibility of more special sessions.

It is important that the people know that the proposed

amendment would allow taxation measures to be presented in
any of the sessions. The inference that money matters can be
introduced only at one of the annual sessions is a sham.

Montana's voters have already expressed the desire for less
legislative involvement in their lives and for holding down
taxes.

This proposal for annual sessions is directly contrary to what
the people have said they fear.

s/Jack Gait, Chairman
Walter R. Sales
Ken Byerly

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 11

Annual sessions of the legislature are needed to break up the
tight administrative bureaucracy now existing, and to bring
back the responsible democracy of elected legislators to gov-
ernment.

Annual sessions will msure that Montana continues to get a
citizen legislature selected from persons from all walks of life.
Capable and concerned citizens will run for legislative office
because annual sessions will be shorter and will have a pre-
dictable schedule. The history of annual sessions inour various
neighboring states bears this out.

Whether we have annual or biennial (every 2 years) sessions
has very little to do with the number of bills introduced. What
matters is the type of discipline and restrictions imposed by the
legislature. The cause of the decrease of bills in the 1981
session was the direct result of the limit on the number of bills
which could be introduced by the individual legislator.

The cost factor between annual sessions and biennial ses-
sions is about equal due to the increasing number of special
sessions needed by the biennial session format. Furthermore,
annual sessions would avoid the crisis atmosphere which has
prevailed in the closing days of the biennial session, resulting
in costly errors and oversights.

Consideration of legislation contrary to the regular purpose
of an annual session would be limited to legislation approved
for introduction by a 2/3 vote of either house. A 2/3 vote would
not be easy to get.

Lobbyists, bureaucrats, special interest groups and foes of
responsible government are against annual sessions.

Constitutional Amendment 11 should be passed.

s/Lawrence G. Stimatz, Chairman
Bob Brown

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT;

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 11

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to require the legislature
to meet yearly. In odd-numbered years the legislature would meet for not more than 60 days and would consider
legislation on all subjects except appropriations. In even-numbered years the legislature would meet for not more than
45 days and would be limited to considering revenue and appropriations matters. Legislation on excluded subjects could
be considered if two-thirds of the members of either house voted to introduce such a bill. Currently the legislature meets
every other year for not more than 90 days.

FISCAL NOTE
THE COST OF LEGISLATORS' SALARIES, EXPENSES AND STAFF FOR THE PRESENT 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE
SESSION IS APPROXIMATELY $3.2 MILLION. THESE COSTS WOULD INCREASE ABOUT $500,000 IF THE

-5-

LEGISLATURE WERE TO MEET IN YEARLY SESSIONS TOTALING 105 DAYS DURING THE SAME TWO YEAR
PERIOD.

I I FOR annual legislative sessions.

I I AGAINST annual legislative sessions.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

NO. 12

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution regarding the
legislature's ability to override the governor's veto. Currently the legislature must come back into session if it wishes to
reconsider a bill vetoed by the governor after the session has ended. This proposal would allow the secretary of state to
poll the legislature by mail. The proposal also specifies that two-thirds of the members of each house of the lesiglature
must vote to override any veto for a bill to become a law. ,

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI.
SECTION 10 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL
CONDUCT A POLL OF ALL LEGISLATORS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT IN SESSION AND THE GOVER-
NOR VETOES A BILL.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Article VL seciton 10, of the Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read:
"Section 10. Veto power. ( 1) Each bill passed by the legislature, except bills proposing amendments to the Montana
constitution, bills ratifying proposed amendments to the United States constitution, resolutions, and initiative and
referendum measures, shall be submitted to the governor for his signature. If he does not sign or veto the bill within five
days after its delivery to him if the legislature is in session or within 25 days if the legislature is adjourned, it shall
become law. The governor shall return a vetoed bill to the legislature with a statement of his reasons therefor.

(2) The governor may return any bill to the legislature with his recommendation for amendment. If the legislature
passes the bill in accordance with the governor's recommendation, it shall again return the bill to the governor for his
reconsideration. The governor shall not return a bill for amendment a second time.

(3) If after receipt of a veto message, two-thirds of the members of each house.present approve the bill, it shall become
law.

(4) iaj If the legislature is not in session when the governor vetoes a bill approved by two-thirds of the members
present, he shall return the bill with his reasons therefor to the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall poll the
members of the legislature by mail and shall send each member a copy of the governor's veto message. If two-thirds or
more of the members of each house vote to override the veto, the bill shall become law.

(b) The legislature may reconvene as provided by law to reconsider any bill vetoed by the governor when the
legislature is not in session.

(5) The governor may veto items in appropriation bills, and in such instances the procedure shall be the same as upon
veto of an entire bill."

Section 2. Effective date. This amendment is effective immediately upon approval by the electorate of Montana.
Section 3. Submission to electorate. When this amendment is submitted to the qualified electors of Montana, there
shall be printed on the ballot the full title of this act and the following words:

FOR allowing the legislature to override a post-session veto through a poll of its members by the secretary
of state.

AGAINST allowing the legislature to override a post-session veto through a poll of its members by the secre-
tary of state.

ARGUMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT NO. 12

The veto power is one of those checks and balances in our
government which has become unbalanced in recent years and
tilted too much toward the governor. The reason for this is that
if the legislators are not in session and available to vote on
whether to override the governor's veto of a bill they just
passed and sent to him, then his veto is not subject to their
ultimate power to make the laws.

Most significant vetoes in recent years have come after the
legislature has adjourned. This is not the governor's doing:

most of the important bills do not reach his desk until after
adjournment. Elaborate computer technology is used to check
legislative bills for errors after the final votes in the house or
the senate. This process, called "enrolling," takes a number of
days when hundreds of bills are heading toward the governor's
desk. Computerized enrolling is a bottleneck at the end of
legislative sessions which removes most governor's vetoes
from the possibility of legislative override.

It is impractical and undesirable to expect the legislature to
call itself back in session two or three weeks after adjournment
just to try to override a veto. When travel and lodging costs are

-6-

reimbursed, the cost of a few minutes or hours of debate and
voting becomes unacceptable. Once the legislature has com-
pleted its winter's work, most citizens do not want to hear
about it again for awhile. Many members have long-postponed
work obligations or businesses to catch up on in the spring.

Under these conditions, a vote-by-mail system to determine
whether a veto should be upheld or overriden makes excellent
sense. It is well suited to Montana's geography and citizen
legislature tradition. Legislators already participate by mail
in deciding whether to agree or disagree with the intent of
state administrative regulations, or whether to call them-
selves into special session.

A mail ballot would not automatically follow every
governor's veto after a legislative session. Only those bills
supported by at least two-thirds of the legislators and then
vetoed would be covered. For example, the bill to increase tax
deductions for inflation was supported by most of the legis-
lators of both parties in 1979, yet was vetoed after adjourn-
ment. As a practical matter, only bills enjoying such strong
bipartisan support would be protected by this amendment.

We recommend a vote for the amendment to properly rebal-
ance the checks and balances.

s/Pete Story, Chairman
Roger Tippy
Barbara J. "Bobby" Spilker

ARGUMENT AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT NO. 12

Constitutional Amendment No. 12 would be a significant
departure from the existing framework of Montana Govern-
ment. Currently, the Legislature is intended to act as a law-
making body only when assembled. This Amendment would
authorize legislative action when members are dispersed
throughout the state. This type of action, taken without the
opportunity for public debate and deliberation and without the
opportunity for public access and involvement, would weaken
the legislative branch, whose essence is reasoned action follow-
ing full consideration of all points of view.

This amendment is unnecessary. It will upset the delicate
balance of powers between the legislative and executive
branches of government. Under existing practice, if the legis-
lature determines it may have to override a gubernatorial
veto, it merely has to pass the bill in a timely fashion — up to
five days before the end of a legislative session.

The amendment would eliminate full legislative delibera-
tion and restrict public participation in the legislative process.

It greatly increases the likelihood of enacting technically
flawed or unconstitutional laws.

By authorizing Legislators to vote to override a veto by mail,
without the benefit of the views of fellow legislators and the
public, the amendment invites hasty action. Such action is
foreign to the legislative process, which places a premium on
regular procedure with many opportunities for other Legis-
lators and concerned voters to be heard. These opportunities
are lost under the proposed procedure.

If a bill has technical flaws or is unconstitutional as written,
and is vetoed and returned to the Legislature prior to adjourn-
ment, the Legislature may amend the bill to correct the prob-
lems and pass its amended version. If a bill is vetoed for one of
these two reasons after adjournment of a session, a mail poll of
the Legislature, even if reasons for the veto are provided, could
result in enactment of a technically unworkable or unconstitu-
tional bill.

The bill that proposes this constitutional amendment ap-
pears to have a technical flaw itself. It would allow the legisla-
■ ture to override, by mail ballot, a veto of a bill which had passed
the house of origin, when assembled, by a wide margin or
unanimously but passed the second house of the legislature,
when assembled, by only one vote.

A bill which is politically controversial can be normally
passed to the Governor at least five days prior to adjournment
so that, if he chooses to veto it on a political basis, it can be
returned, debated, and resolved by the Legislature before it
adjourns.

The danger of allowing a mail poll to be used as a means to
override a gubernatorial veto in all three cases is that itdoes-
not allow for the deliberate discussion and debate that would
provide each member of the Legislature the benefit to hear the
arguments for and against the matter prior to voting.
Constitutional Amendment No. 12 should not be passed.

s/Jack Haffey, Chairman
Dennis R. Lopach

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 12

The argument presented in support of Constitutional
Amendment No. 12 contradicts itself and is effectively rebut-
ted in the argument advocating rejection of the issue.

The proponents suggest that the legislature, because it is not
in session, cannot override a post-session gubernatorial veto,
while acknowledging that the legislature can call itself back
into session to deliberate, debate and decide whether or not to
override. It is clear, therefore, that the post-session veto is
subject to legislative override. If a special session is not fa-
vored, the issue could be addressed through a new bill in the
next regular legislative session. Either existing method satis-
fies the interest of the public in legislative action following
assembled deliberation and debate. This is not the case with a
mail ballot.

The argument that computerized enrolling is a bottleneck at
the end of a legislative session has no bearing on whether bills
addressing significant issues can be passed by the legislature
to the Giovernor no less than five days prior to adjournment . . .
and even if it did, the slowness or inefficiency of the paper-
handling process should not authorize legislators to make laws
by mail Dallot.

Any measure which denies the citizens of Montana access to
the lawmaking process, as does a mail ballot, should be re-
jected.

The legislature can ensure, through its scheduling and
handling of bills, that significant bills are passed to the Gover-
nor in time to consider a veto prior to adjournment of the
legislature.

Constitutional Amendment No. 12 should be rejected.

s/Jack Haffey
Dennis Lopach

REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 12

The opponents have charged tht this amendment would
somehow weaken the legislative branch. They then point out
various features of the change which will plainly strengthen
the legislative branch.

Voters should understand that when the legislature does
have a chance to vote on overriding an early veto, it does so
under the current rules without further hearings or extended
debate. A veto message is scheduled for one straight up-or-
down vote in each chamber. Since the bill has already been
through a full round of debate in each chamber, there is not
much more to be said about it. As far as public involvement is
concerned, legislators will benefit far more by listening to the
opinions of their neighbors back home than by rehashing the
same old arguments in Helena.

We cannot see how this increases the likelihood of enhancing
technically flawed or unconstitutional legislation. If the
governor's veto message sets out the nature of these technical
or constitutional flaws in a straightforward manner, he will
doubtless persuade at least one-third of the legislators mailing
in their ballots, and the veto will be upheld. It is only when the
real reason for the veto is plainly political rather than techni-
cal that the legislative override by mail will be an important
check.

The "delicate balance of powers" is already out of whack, and
this amendment is needed to set it straight again.

s/Peter Story, Chairman
Barbara J. "Bobby" Spilker
Roger Tippy

-7-

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 12

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution regardmg the
legislature's ability to override the governor's veto. Currently the legislature must come back into session if it wishes to
reconsider a bill vetoed by the governor after the session has ended. This proposal would allow the secretary of state to
poll the legislature by mail. The proposal also specifies that two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature
must vote to override any veto for a bill to become a law.

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI,
SECTION 10 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL
CONDUCT A POLL OF ALL LEGISLATORS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT IN SESSION AND THE GOVER-
NOR VETOES A BILL.

D
D

FOR allowing the legislature to override a post-session veto through a poll of its members by the secretary
of state.

AGAINST allowing the legislature to override a post-session veto through a poll of its members by the secre-
tary of state.

NOTES:

-8-

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM
NO. 89

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the initiative passed by the voters in 1980

concerning the disposal of certain radioactive materials. This proposal would allow the disposal of some uranium and

thorium mill tailings. The state would regulate the disposal of tailings, monitor the maintenance of disposal sites, and

may charge fees for radiation control services. The state would also have authority to condemn radioactive waste

disposal sites. , ^,

Fiscal Note »

The cost of administering the radioactive materials program will be $41,600 in fiscal year 1984 and $58,872 in fiscal

year 1985. The cost of operation of the project after fiscal year 1985 will be funded from license fees.

AN ACT TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION OF DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN THE
STATE OF MONTANA ENACTED BY INITIATIVE 84 AND PROVIDING FOR A REGULATORY SYSTEM; PRO-
VIDING FOR THE CONTROL AND CONDEMNATION OF LAND USED FOR DISPOSAL OF MILL TAILINGS
FROM URANIUM AND THORIUM ORE PROCESSING; AND REVISING THE LAWS CONCERNING RADIATION
CONTROL- AMENDING SECTIONS 75-3-102, 75-3-103, 75-3-104, 75-3-201, 75-3-202, 75-3-302, 75-3-303, 75-30-102,
MCA, AND SECTION 1 OF INITIATIVE 84; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE: AND PROVIDING FOR A
REFERENDUM.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE
OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Section 75-3-102, MCA, is amended to read:
"75-3-102. Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to pro-
vide a program:

( 1) of effective regulation of sources of ionizing radiation for
the protection of the occupational and public health and safety;

(2) to promote an orderly regulatory pattern within the
state, among the states, and between the federal government
and the state and facilitate intergovernmental cooperation
with respect to use and regulation of sources of ionizing radia-
tion to the end that duplication of regulation may be-
minimized;

(3) to establish procedures for assumption and performance
of certain regulatory responsibilities with respect to by-
product, source, and special nuclear materials; and

(4) to permit maximum utilization of sources of ionizing
radiation consistent with the health and safety of the public;

( 5) for the control of mill tailings from uranium and thorium
ore processing, both at active mill operations and after termi-
nation of active operations, in order to stabilize and control the
tailings in a safe and environmentally sound manner,
minimize or eliminate radiation health hazards to the public,
and eliminate to the maximum extent practicable the need for
long-term maintenance and monitoring."

Section 2. Section 75-3-103, MCA, is amended to read:
"75-3-103. Definitions. The definitions used in this chapter
are intended to be consistent with those used in Title 10 CFR^
parts 1-199^ and Title 49 CFR, parts 173.389-173.399. Unless
the context requires otherwise, in this chapter the following
definitions apply:

( 1) "Byproduct material" means:

(a) any radioactive material (except special nuclear mater-
ial) yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the radiation
incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear
material; and

(b) the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or con-
centration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed
primarily for its source material content, including discrete
surface wastes resulting from a uranium solution extraction
process, but excluding underground ore bodies depleted bv
such solution extraction operations.

(2) "CFR" means the Code of Federal Regulations published
bv the United States Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton. D.C.

(3) "Department" means the department of health and en-
' vironmental sciences.

14) "Disposal" means burial in soil, release through the
sanitary sewerage system, incineration, or permanent long-
term storage with no intention of or provision for subsequent
removal.

(5) "General license" means a license effective pursuant to
rules promulgated by the department without the filing of an
application to transfer, acquire, own, possess, or use quantities
of or devices or equipment utilizing quantities of byproduct,
source, special nuclear materials, or other radioactive mater-
ial occurring naturally or produced artificially. General
licenses are effective without the filing of applications with the
department or the issuing of licensing documents to the user.

(6) "Ionizing radiation" means gamma rays and x-rays,
alpha and beta particles, high-speed electrons, neutrons, pro-
tons, and other nuclear particles, but not sound or radio waves
or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light.

(7) "Large quantity radioactive material" is that quantity of
radioactive material defined in 49 CFR 173.389 (b).

(8) "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership,
firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution,
group, agency, political subdivision or agency thereof, and any
legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the forego-
ing, other than the United States nuclear regulatory commis-
sion, any successor thereto, or federal agencies licensed by the
nuclear regulatory commission.

(9) "Registration" means the registering with the depart-
ment by the legal owner, user, or authorized representative of
sources of ionizing radiation in the manner prescribed by rule.

(10) "Source material" means uranium, thorium, or any
other material which the department or the United States
nuclear regulatory commission declares by order to be source
material or ores containing one or more of the foregoing mater-
ials in such concentration as the department or the nuclear
regulatory commission declares by order to be source material
after the nuclear regulatory commission has determined the
material in such concentration to be source material.

(11) "Special nuclear material" means plutonium, uranium
233, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235,
and any other material which the department or the United
States nuclear regulatory commission or any successor thereto
declares by order to be special nuclear material or any material
artificially enriched by any of the foregoing but does not in-
clude source material.

(12) "Specific license" means a license issued after applica-
tion to use, manufacture, produce, transfer, receive, acquire,
own, or possess quantities of or devices or equipment utilizing
quantities of byproduct, special nuclear materials, or other
radioactive material occurring naturally or produced artifi-
cially.

(13) "Surety" means:

(a) cash deposits;

(b) surety bonds:

(d) deposits of government securities;

(e) letters of credit: and

-9-

(f) other surety mechanisms considered acceptable by the
department.

Section 3. Section 75-3-104, MCA, is amended to read:
"75-3-104. Exemptions — sources, diagnosis, and therapy.

( 1) This chapter does not apply to the following sources or
conditions:

(a) electrical equipment that is not intended primarily to
produce radiation and that, by nature of design, does not pro-
duce radiation at the point of nearest approach at a weekly rate
higher than one-tenth the appropriate limit for any critical
organ exposed. The production testing or production servicing
of such equipment is not exempt.

(b) radiation machines during process of manufacture or in
storage or transit; '

(cl any radioactive material while being transported in con-
formity with regulations adopted by the nuclear regulatory
commission or any successor thereto or the interstate com-
merce commission and specifically applicable to the transpor-
tation of such radioactive materials.

(2) No exemptions under this section are granted for those
quantities or types of activities that do not comply with the
established rules promulgated by the nuclear regulatory
commission or by any successor thereto."

Section 4. Section 75-3-201, MCA. is amended to read:
"75-3-201. State radiation control agency. (1) The depart-
ment is the state radiation control agency.

(2) Under the laws of this state, the department may employ,
compensate, and prescribe the powers and duties of the indi-
viduals which are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(3) The department may for the protection of the occupa-
tional and public health and safety:

(a) develop and conduct programs for evaluation and control
of hazards associated with the use of sources of ionizing radia-
tion;

lb) develop programs and adopt rules with due regard for
compatibility with federal programs for licensing and regula-
tion of byproduct, source, radioactive waste, and special nuc-
lear materials and other radioactive materials. These rules
shall cover equipment and facilities, methods for transporting,
handling, and storage of radioactive materials, permissible
levels of exposure, technical qualifications of personnel, re-
quired notification of accidents and other incidents involving
radioactive materials, survey methods and results, methods of
disposal of radioactive materials, posting and labeling of areas
and sources, and methods and effectiveness of controlling indi-
viduals in posted and restricted areas.

(d) advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies of the
state, the federal government, other states, interstate agen-
cies, political subdivisions, and groups concerned with control
of sources of ionizing radiation;

(e) accept and administer loans, grants, or other funds or
gifts, conditional or otherwise, in furtherance of its functions,
from the federal government and from other sources, public or
private;

(f) encourage, participate in, or conduct studies, investiga-
tions, training, research, and demonstrations relating to con-
trol of .sources of ionizing radiation;

(g) collect and disseminate information relating to control of
sources of ionizing radiation, including:

(i) maintenanceof afileof all license applications, issuances,
denials, amendments, transfers, renewals, modifications, sus-
pensions, and revocations;

(ii) maintenance of a file of registrants possessing sources of
ionizing radiation requiring registration under this chapter
and any administrative or judicial action pertaining thereto;

(iii) maintenance of a file of all rules relating to regulation of
sources of ionizing radiation, pending or adopted, and proceed-
ings thereon."

Section 5. Section 75-3-202, MCA, is amended to read:

"75-3-202. Licensing and registration. (1) The department
shall provide by rule for general or specific licensing of persons
to receive, possess, or transfer radioactive materials and de-
vices or equipment utilizing such materials. However, the
department of state lands may, in lieu of the department,
provide for permitting for reclamation purposes of uranium
and thoriuni mills ana tailing disposal sites pursuant to Title

82, chapter 4, and this section. The rules shall provide for
amendment, suspension, or revocation of licenses pursuant to
75-3-401 and 75-3-403.

(2) Each application for a specific license shall be in writing
and shall state such information as the department by rule
may determine to be necessary to decide the technical, insur-
ance, and financial qualifications or any other qualification of
the applicant as the department considers reasonable and
necessary to protect the occupational and public health and
safety. The department may, at any time after the filing of the
application and before the expiration of the license, require
further written statements and may make such inspections as
the department considers necessary in order to determine
whether the license should be granted, denied, modified, sus-
pended, or revoked. All applications and statements shall be
signed by the applicant or licensee. The department may re-
quire an application or statement to be made under oath or
affirmation.

(3) Each license shall be in such form and contain .such terms
and conditions as the department may by rule prescribe.

(4) No license issued pursuant to the provisions of this chap-
ter and no right to possess or utilize sources of ionizing radia-
tion granted by any license may be assigned or in any manner
disposed of

(5) The terms and conditions of all licenses shall be subject to
amendment, revision, or modification by rules or orders issued
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(6) The department may require registration and inspection
of persons dealing with sources of ionizing radiation which do
not require a specific license and may require compliance with
specific safety standards to be promulgated by the department.

(7) The department is authorized to exempt certain users
from the licensing or registration requirements set forth in
this section when the department makes a finding that the
exemption of the users will not constitute a significant risk to
the health and safety of the public.

(8) Rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter may provide
for recognition of such other state or federal licenses as the
department considers desirable, subject to such registration
requirements as the department prescribes.

(9) The department or department of state lands may charge
reasonable fees for its radiation control services, including but
not limited to those for the issuance of categories of specific
licenses consistent with the categories established by the Un-
ited States nuclear regulatory commission or any successor
thereto, and for inspections of licensees. Fees for the issuance
of uranium or thorium milling or concentration licenses shall
be sufficient to cover the department's or department of state
lands' full costs of processing an application. The department
shall establish a fee structure for such milling or concentration
licenses which includes an application fee and an annual
license maintenance fee. The maintenance fee shall be set at a
level which, taking account of the nature and size of the vari-
ous types of licenses and activities, will defray the
department's costs of inspections, review, and approval of
license revisionsT^

Section 6. Ownership of disposal sites and byproduct mater-
ial. (1) Prior to or following the expiration of any radioactive
materials license issued after July 1, 1981, the department or
department of state lands may condemn the title to any land,
other than land held in trust by the United States for any
Indian tribe or owned by an Indian tribe and subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, or
any interest therein, which is used for the disposal of byproduct
material pursuant to the license, and the title to the byproduct
itself, pursuant to Title 70, chapter 30. Condemnation is not
allowed if the United States nuclear regulatory commission or
any successor thereto determines, prior to the expiration of the
license, that condemnation and transfer of either or both the
land and byproduct material is not necessary to protect the
public healthy, safety, and welfare;

(2) If the department or department of state lands condemns
any interest in land or byproduct material pursuant to this
section:

(a) the land or material must be maintained by the depart-
ment or department of state lands in a manner to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare;

-10-

\ ( b) the department or department of state lands is authorized
to undertake such monitoring, maintenance, and emergency
measures as necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare:

(c) the transfer of title to the land or byproduct material does
not relieve any licensee of liability for fraudulent or negligent
acts done prior to condemnation.

Section 7. Standards for decontamination. (1) The depart-
ment shall promulgate standards for the decontamination,
decommissioning, and reclamation of any site at which ores
were processed primarily for their source material content and
which sites were used for disposal of byproduct material. How-
ever; the department of state lands, in lieu of the department,
may promulgate standards for the reclamation of such disposal
sites pursuant to Title 82, chapter 4, and this section.

(2) Any radioactive material license issued or renewed after
July 1, 1981, for any activity that results in the production of
byproduct material must contain such terms and provisions as
the department determines necessary to insure that, prior to
the expiration of the license, the licensee will comply with the
decontamination, decommissioning, and reclaunation stan-
dards of the department.

Section 8. Surety requirements. (1) Upon the condemnation
of any land used for the disposal of byproduct material, the
condemnation of byproduct material, or the condemnation of
both such land and material, the department or department of
state lands shall:

(a) require that an adequate surety, as determined by the
department, be provided by the licensee in order to ensure the
completion of all decontamination, decommissioning, and re-
clamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in conjunc-
tion with generation or disposal of byproduct material: and

(b) determine whether any long-term maintenance or
monitoring of the land or byproduct material is necessary. If
the maintenance or monitoring is found necessary, the licensee
must make available to the department or department of state
lands the funds necessary to assure the maintenance and
monitoring and funds necessary to ensure compliance with
standards adopted by the United States nuclear regulatory
commission relating to reclamation and long-term manage-
ment of the disposal site or byproduct material, or both.

(2) The funds required by this section shall include, but are
not limited to, sums collected for long-term surveillance, and,
if necessary, maintenance, but do not include money held as
surety where no default has occurred and the reclamation or
other bonded activity has been performed.

Section 9. Requirements for persons exempt from licensing.
The department or department of state lands may, by rule or
order, require persons processing ores primarily for their
source material content but exempt from licensing under this
chapter to conduct monitoring, perform remedial work, and
comply with such measures as the department considers
necessary or desirable to protect health or minimize danger to
life or property.

Section 10. Section 1 of Initiative 84 is amended to read as
follows:

"New Section 1. There is a new MCA section that reads as
follows:

"Policy. It is the policy of the state of Montana, in further-
ance of its responsibility to protect the public health and
safety, under the police powers of the state and for protection of
the constitutional right to a healthy environment, to provide
for the regulation of the disposal of certain radioactive mater-
ial " "

Section 11. Section 75-3-302, MCA, is amended to read:

"75-3-302. Disposal of large quantities of radioactive mater-
ial prohibited — exclusion. ( 1) No person may dispose of large
quantity radioactive material, high-level radioactive mater-
ial, byproduct material as defined in 75-3-103 il) (a), or special
nuclear material, within the state of Montana. Byproduct
material lexcept large quantity radioactive material) posses-
sed, used, and transported for educational purposes; scientific
research and development: medical research, diagnosis, and
treatment: geophysical surveying; and similar uses licensed by
the United States nuclear regulatory commission or the de-
partment are exempt from this section.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection <1) of this section, the dis-

posal in Montana of byproduct material, as defined in 75-3-103
(1) (b), produced in Montana, is authorized if done pursuant to
a license issued by the United States or by the department.

(3) For purposes of subsectiori ( 1) of this section, "radioactive
material means any material, or combination of materials,
which spontaneously emits ionizing radiation and for which a
specific license is required by the United States or by the
department.

( 4) For pHrposes of subsection (1) of this section, disposal of
large quantity radioactive material means the disposal from a
single shipment, container, or vehicle of a quantity of radioac-
tive material that would exceed the limits specified in 49 CFR
173.389.

(5) For purposes of subsection (1), "high-level radioactive
material" means radioactive material consisting of spent nuc-
lear fuel or the highly radioactive waste resulting from the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fueTT

(6) Nothing in this pact precludes the construction of a nuc-
lear facility approved under the requirements of the Montana.
Major Facility Siting Act, or the mining of any raw ore, pro-
vided that such activity is not inconsistent with this part."

Section 12. Section 75-3-303, MCA, is amended to read:
"75-3-303. Penalty. A person who knowingly or purposely
disposes of large quantity radioactive material, byproduct
material, or special nuclear material within Montana in viola-
tion of 75-3-302 shall be fined an amount not more than $5,000
or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both, for each
offense. A person who negligently disposes of large quantity
radioactive material, byproduct material, or special nuclear
material within Montana in violation of 75-3-302 shall be fined
not more than $1,000 for each offense. In this part, each day of
violation constitutes a separate offense."

Section 13. Section 70-30-102, MCA, is amended to read:
"70-30-102. Public uses enumerated. Subject to the provi-
sions of this chapter, the right of eminent domain may be
exercised in behalf of the following public uses:

(1) all public uses authorized by the government of the Un-
ited States;

( 2) public buildings and grounds for the use of the state and
all other public uses authorized by the legislature of the state;

(3) public buildings and grounds for the use of any county,
city or town, or school district; canals, aqueducts, flumes,
ditches, or pipes conducting water, heat, or gas for the use of
the inhabitants of any county, city, or town; raising the banks
of streams, removing obstructions therefrom, and widening,
deepening, or straightening their channels; roads, streets, and
alleys and all other public uses for the benefit of any county,
city, or town or the inhabitants thereof, which may be au-
thorized by the legislature; but the mode of apportioning and
collecting the costs of such improvements shall be such as may
be provided in the statutes or ordinances by which the same
may be authorized;

(4) wharves, docks, piers, chutes, booms, ferries, bridges, of
all kinds, private roads, plank and turnpike roads, railroads,
canals, ditches, fiumes, aqueducts, and pipes for public trans-
portation, supplying mines, mills, and smelters for the reduc-
tion of ores and farming neighborhoods with water and drain-
age and reclaiming lands and for floating logs and lumber on
streams not navigable and sites for reservoirs necessary for
collecting and storing water. However, such reservoir sites
must possess a public use demonstrable to the district court as
the highest and best use of the land.

(5) roads, tunnels, ditches, flumes, pipes, and dumping
places for working mines, mills, or smelters for the reduction of
ores; also outlets, natural or otherwise, for the flow, deposit, or
conduct of tailings or refuse matter from mines, mills, and
smelters for the reduction of ores; also an occupancy in common
by the owners or the possessors of different mines of any place
for the flow, deposit, or conduct of tailings or refuse matter
from their several mines, mills, or smelters for reduction of
ores and sites for reservoirs necessary for collecting and stor-
ing water. However, such reservoir sites must possess a public
use demon.strable to the district court as the highest and best
use of the land.

1 6) private roads leading from highways to residences or
farms;

(7) telephone or electric light lines;

-11-

(8) telegraph lines;

(9) sewerage of any city, county, or town or any subdivision
thereof, whether incorporated or unincorporated, or of any
settlement consisting of not less than 10 families or of any
public buildings belonging to the state or to any college or
university;

( 10) tramway lines;

(11) electric power lines;

(12) logging railways;

(13) temporary logging roads and banking grounds for the
transportation of logs and timber products to public streams,
lakes, mills, railroads, or highways for such time as the court
or judge may determine; provided, the grounds of state institu-
tions be excepted;

( 14) underground reservoirs suitable for storage of natural
gas;

( 151 to mine and extract ores, metals, or minerals owned by
the plaintiff located beneath or upon the surface of property
where the title to said surface vests in others. However, the use
of the surface for strip mining or open pit mining of coal (i.e.,
any mining method or process in which the strata or overbur-
den is removed or displaced in order to extract the coal) is not a
public use, and eminent domain may not be exercised for this
purpose;

(16) to restore and reclaim lands strip- or underground-
mined for coal and not reclaimed in accordance with Title 82,
chapter 4, part 2, and to abate or control adverse affects of strip

or underground mining on those lands;

( 17) to decontaminate, decommission, or reclaim byproduct
material and disposal sites in accordance with Title 75, chapter
3, part 2."

Section 14, Codification instruction. Sections 6 through 10
and section 1 of Initiative 84, as amended by this act, are
intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 75, chapter 3,
and the provisions of Title 75, chapter 3, apply to sections 6
through 10 and section 1 of Initiative 84, as amended by this
act.

Section 15. Saving clause. This act does not affect rights and
duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceed-
ings that were begun before the effective date of this act.

Section 16. Severability. If a part of this act is invalid, all
valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in
effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its
applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications
that are severable from the invalid applications.

Section 17. Coordination. If Senate Bill 258 is passed and
approved, any reference in this act to "department of state
lands" is changed to "department of natural resources and
conservation".

Section 18. Referendum. The question of whether this act
shall become effective shall be submitted to the electors of the
state of Montana at the general election to be held November 2,
1982. The question shall be submitted by printing on the ballot
the full title of this act and the following:

FOR allowing disposal in Montana of uranium mill tailings as an exception to the ban on disposal of radioactive
waste and providing a regulatory system.

AGAINST allowing disposal in Montana of uranium mill tailings as an exception to the ban on disposal of
radioactive waste and providing a regulatory system.

Section 19. Effective date. This act is effective on passage
and approval by the electors of the state of Montana.

ARGUMENT FOR LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 89

Referendum 89 is an amendment to existing law. Under
existing law the mine mill tailings from uranium and thorium
are prohibited from disposal within the state. It is not economi-
cally feasible to mine uranium and ship the total ore body to
the market and it is not economically feasible to dispose of the
mill tailings out of the state. The prohibition of disposal of mill
tailings in the state established by Initiative 84 in 1980 thus
rendered uranium mining impractical.

Since that time there has been no uranium or thorium min-
ing and no significant exploration in the state. The loss of
mining and exploration caused the loss of numerous technical
jobs and supporting services. There was also a loss of capital
investment in Montana from this viable industry. Many coun-
ties lost tax revenues.

Referendum 89 would amend the law to permit and regulate
the proper disposal of mine mill tailings in accordance with
approved federal standards. The licensing and permitting fees
to be paid by the industry would cover all costs of state regula-
tion and there would be no cost to the taxpayer. The safety of
the general public would be protected and at the same time a
strategic natural resource could be located and developed for
the benefit of our society and our country.

The ban on disposal of nuclear waste from outside our state
would still be in effect and would not be any more subject to
challenge in the court than it has been in the past.

s/Thomas F. Keating, Chairman
Thomas R. Conroy
Henry E. Reed
ARGUMENT AGAINST LEGISLATIVE
REFERENDUM NO. 89

Legislative Referendum 89 (LR-89) would accomplish two
purposes that are alien to good government in Montana. First,
it effectively repeals an initiative law passed by Montana
voters in 1980, Initiative 84. Second, it establishes a new
regulatory system that will be costly, untimely, and probably
ineffective for Montana.

LR-89 would eliminate Initiative 84's ban on radioactive
waste produced by the refining of uranium and its radioactive

decay products. Uranium mining wastes are not banned or
regulated by Initiative 84, your existing radioactive waste
ban, since those mining wastes are regulated by the same law
that regulates coal mining. The refining waste that is pres-
ently banned is called radioactive mill tailings. Present law
allows disposal of this waste in Montana if the radioactivity is
reduced by recovering the radioactive decay products. This is
more expensive, but it leaves a cleaner waste that does not
require either special handling or a bureaucracy to monitor the
waste forever. LR-89, now on the ballot, would require both the
special handling and the bureaucracy to monitor the waste
forever, no small expense in itself.

In an appeal to our protective instincts, LR-89 does try to ban
the disposal in Montana of radioactive mill tailings produced
in other states. This is unconstitutional under the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it discriminates against
other states. LR-89 would create a legal nightmare for Mon-
tana. Further, by effectively repealing Initiative 84, LR-89
would also eliminate Montana's present requirement that
groundwater be returned to its original quality after any pro-
cess of chemically dissolving uranium underground (solution
mining).

In allowing disposal of radioactive mill waste in Montana,
LR-89 would establish the statutory framework for Montana to
become an "agreement state" with the U.S. Nuclear Regulat-
ory Commission. "Agreement states" are those that assume
full regulatory responsibility for the handling, licensing, and
disposal of certain radioactive wastes. "Agreement states"
must duplicate the applicable functions and expertise of the
staff in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's source materials
division. This is expensive. Arizona tried "agreement status,"
then backed out in February, 1980, after finding it did not have
the financial capability to meet the federal standards. New
Mexico had a staff of two people for this purpose around 1976.
Now New Mexico has a staff of about twenty people in the
$15,000 to $50,000 salary range and is still understaffed. Add
office and laboratory facilities and other processing activities
and Montana is facing a potential million dollar budget with
no guarantee the job can be done properly.

-12-

Voting against LR-89 would leave Initiative 84 intact, re-
quiring only that the health department measure radioactiv-
ity in the mill waste to be sure it is below the standard which
defines radioactive material. Again, mine waste is not banned
or even regulated by Initiative 84, our existing law. Please vote
against LR-89. s/Paul F. Boylan, Chairman

Joe Brand
Edward M. Dobson
REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR LEGISLATIVE
REFERENDUM NO. 89

Anyone who says it isn't economical to mine uranium and
ship the ore hasn't followed what is happening in Arizona.
There, in spite of a very poor market, about twenty-five 26-ton
loads of uranium ore per day are trucked over 300 miles from
the Hack Canyon area to Blanding, Utah. However, uranium
and thorium mill tailings can be disposed of in Montana under
existing law if the radium is also removed.

The argument that Montana is losing jobs, capital invest-
ment, and tax revenue is misleading. The uranium industry is
expanding in very few places. Thousands of jobs have been los
tin Wyoming due to industry over-expansion and low demand,
and Wyoming has no law like Initiative 84. Montana is fortu-
nate that there is no uranium industry here now because we
already have too many layoffs in other industries.

If we establish the regulatory framework proposed by Re-
ferendum 89 and expect license and permit fees to foot the
entire bill, how soon will we hear calls for relief from regulat-
ory expenses and enforcement? - And who pays for perpetual
waste monitoring when milling is finished?

The ban on waste from outside Montana is unconstitutional.
Including such a vulnerable misapplication of the law within
Referendum 89 threatens our entire radioactive waste ban.
The courts may find that the other protections cannot properly
be separated from the intent of the unconstitutional clause.

No, we must not approved Referendum 89.

s/Paul F. Boylan, Chairman
Joe Brand
Edward M. Dobson

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
REFERENDUM NO. 89

Those advocating rejection of LR-89 seem to be confused in
their arguments against LR-89 and for 1-84 (1980). Don't you
be confused.

LR-89 does not repeal 1-84, but it does modify it to the extent
that mining operations can be conducted safely and economi-
cally, and the mill tailings properly disposed of nearby. Most of
the regulating provisions of 1-84 are still there for the protec-
tion of the public.

LR-89 does not establish a costly new regulatory system. It is
specified therein that the operators pay license fees and annual
fees to cover the cost of supervision by the state. The taxpayer
does not pay for it.

If mining is possible under 1-84, as they argue, why isn't
there any exploration or mining in the state? Simply, because
the current regulations are prohibitive. The uranium deposits
are not vast, but some exploration and mining will provide'
some good paying jobs.

Don't be fooled by those who would try to convince you with a
bunch of frightening phrases that it isn't safe. The Montana
State Director of the Bureau of Mines stated in a recent ( 1982)
study entitled "Nuclear Fuel and Atomic Energy in Montana"
that there is much misinformation about nuclear fuels extrac-
tion and that the public can be protected by adequate regula-
tion; that the economics of extracting domestic uranium ores
are not now favorable; and that reasonable and effective
safeguards are a practical goal.

We think LR-89 is a practical and safe procedural program.
You can vote for it.

s/Thomas F. Keating, Chairman
Thomas R. Conroy
Henry E. Reed

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 89

AN ACT REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
The legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the initiative passed by the voters in 1980
concerning the disposal of certain radioactive materials. This proposal would allow the disposal of some uranium and
thorium mill tailings. The state would regulate the disposal of tailings, monitor the maintenance of disposal sites, and
may charge fees for radiation control services. The state would also have authority to condemn radioactive waste
disposal sites.

AN ACT TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION OF DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN THE
STATE OF MONTANA ENACTED BY INITIATIVE 84 AND PROVIDING FOR A REGULATORY SYSTEM: PRO-
VIDING FOR THE CONTROL AND CONDEMNATION OF LAND USED FOR DISPOSAL OF MILL TAILINGS
FROM URANIUM AND THORIUM ORE PROCESSING; AND REVISING THE LAWS CONCERNING RADIATION
CONTROL; AMENDING SECTIONS 75-3-102, 75-3-103, 75-3-104, 75-3-201, 75-3-202, 75-3-303, 75-30-102, MCA,
AND SECTION 1 OF INITIATIVE 84; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A REFEREN-
DUM.

FISCAL NOTE
THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS PROGRAM WILL BE $41,600 IN FISCAL
YEAR 1984 AND $58,872 IN FISCAL YEAR 1985. THE COST OF OPERATION OF THE PROJECT AFTER FISCAL
YEAR 1985 WILL BE FUNDED FROM LICENSE FEES.

FOR allowing disposal in Montana of uranium mill tailings as an exception to the ban on disposal of radioactive
waste and providing a regulatory system.

AGAINST allowing disposal in Montana of uranium mill tailings as an exception to the ban on disposal of radio-
active waste and providing a regulatory system.

-13-

INITIATIVE
NO. 91

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
This initiative would declare that the people of Montana are opposed to the placement of MXmissiles in this state. It
also expresses opposition to further testing, development or deployment of nuclear weapons by any nation. Passage of
this initiative is an expression of the opinion of the voters in Montana and would have no legal effect.

Be It Enacted By The People Of Montana:
Section 1. Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared that the people of Montana are opposed to:

1) the placement of MX missiles in Montana; and

2) any further testing, development, or deployment of nuclear weapons by any nation.

Seciton 2. Conveyance to national authorities. The Secretary of State of the State of Montana is hereby directed to
immediately convey a copy of this initiative to the Congress and the President of the United States of America.
Section 3. Effective date. This initiative is effective January 1, 1983.

D
D

FOR the initiative — I oppose the placement of MX missiles in Montana and the further testing, development
or deployment of nuclear weapons by any nation.

AGAINST the initiative — I do not oppose the placement of MX missiles in Montana and the further testing,
development or deployment of nuclear weapons by any nation.

ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 91

It is with a deep sense of stewardship for this land and
respect for all living things that we advocate the approval of
Initiative 91. It is with an equally deep sense of conviction,
alarm and sadness that we as conscientious citizens of these
United States of America recognize our right and duty to speak
directly to an issue which has captured our utmost concern:
The further testing, development or deployment of nuclear
weapons by any nation; more specifically, the placement of the
MX missile system in Montana.

The nuclear arms race has transcended the bounds of de-
cency; it is an evil that can no longer be allowed to have its will
if we are to survive as civilized and thinking human beings.

The MX missile system which may be placed in Montana
poses significant and severe negative consequences for the
people of this state morally, economically, environmentally
and socially and yet Montanans have been offered an insig-
nificant role in the MX decision-making process.

The strategic implications of the MX missile system are
awesome. A massive nuclear weapons system designed with
first-strike ofTensive capability, the MX not only invites a
massive and equally undesirable response from potential ad-
versaries — it demands it. Common sense tells us not to add
fuel to a fire that needs to be put out. The MX has the potential
to ignite an unstoppable nuclear arms race.

The many billions of tax dollars about to be spent on the
development and deployment of the MX and other nuclear
weapons systems have a direct and adverse impact on Monta-
nans through the creation of more inflation, higher taxes and
further decreases in the civilian budget. This money should
instead be channeled into areas far more beneficial in creating
long-term productive jobs for Montanans and for the economy
of the United States as a whole.

Every major religious denomination in Montana has pub-
licly opposed deployment of the MX missile system, as have
many thousands of individuals and many groups and public
bodies in this state: Montanans have judged the MX to be
immoral. With the placement of the MX in Montana, we would
look forward to the gross misuse of our fields, our roads and
highways, our water, our power, our resources, our money,
ourselves. We would surrender ourselves to a destiny beyond
our control.

With the approval of Initiative 91, Montanans as a unified
electorate for the first time have the capacity to send a clear
message to the leaders of this nation and to the people of this
world: That the further testing, development or deployment of
nuclear weapons by any nation is done without our consent and
that we specifically object to the misuse of Montana's resources
for the placement of the MX.

Montanans pride themselves on their common sense and
their independence. The MX missile system and the further
testing, development or deployment of nuclear weapons are an

affront to both. ,r^t ■ ^- m <-.!_ ■

s/Christine Torgrimson, Chairman

John McNamer

Diane Waddell

ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE NO. 91

Every American would like to see an end to the threat of
nuclear war. Montanan's have the right to consider, question
and disagree with our national defen.se program but as one of
the 50 states of the Union do we have the expertise necessary to
make final decisions on national defen.se? Do we have the
constitutional right to isolate ourselves from the national de-
fense program which the majority of our elected leaders from
both political parties determined necessary for future national
defense?

The nuclear superiority which this nation held for many
years is gone. If the Soviet Union were not what it is today, the
world would not fear a nuclear holocaust. There was no fear
when the United States alone held the secrets. The Soviet
Union has fielded powerful strategic forces which have shifted
the balance of power. This shift increases the chances for
Soviet adventurism making arms reduction more difficult.

Deployment of the MX missile as a follow-on to the 20 year
old Minuteman Missile is a major step in upgrading our
strategic forces.

Montanan's should oppo.se Initiative 91 because:

1. We will be inviting rather than preventing enemy ag-
gression in our State if we don't continue to modernize
our strategic defenses since Montana is in a geographi-
cally strategic location.

2. It will be a clear sign to the nation and to the Soviets that
Montanans are willing to be part of the deterrent process
which continues to prevent World War III.

3. If we position ourselves so we are incapable or by law
unable to u.se or develop nuclear weapons, we would be
unable to defend ourselves against the Communist block
in conventional war and this would encourage Com-
munist aggression.

4. The concept of deterrence which has prevented nuclear
war for almost 40 years is not dependent on the U.S. and
the Soviet Union having enough warheads to destroy
each other, but on how the Soviet Union perceives our
strength to survive an attack and retaliate. Any unilat-
eral freeze or ban on our part signals to them a growing
weakness in our resolve to remain strong and free.

5. However well intended, those new parading the "nuclear

-14-

freeze" are asking the Western world to stop further
development of nuclear weapons unilaterally while
there are no parades in the Soviet Union and no one
expects the chants of the West to be heeded in the
Kremlin.
6. While it would be ideal that all nations stop building
nuclear arsenals, previous arms contract treaties have
shown that the Communists have considered arms
treaties to be a means of carrying out their struggle
against the West whereas the U.S. considers treaties a
means of reducing that struggle.
Initiative 91 is an expression of opinion. Voting against it
can give Montana voters a chance to reaffirm the fact that this
state continues to support a strong national defense; one that
will give our negotiators a chance to reach meaningful reduc-
tions in nuclear weapons on both sides.

s/Harold L. Dover, Chairman
Helen G. O'Connell
William Egan
Albert Cochrane
REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 91

At press time, no Rebuttal of Argument For Initiative No. 91
had been filed.

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
INITIATIVE NO. 91

Montanans not only have the right, but the moral responsi-
bility to influence defense decisions that are virtually
threatening our existence, and our children to come. Initiative

91 is not a final decision on national defense. It is rather a
powerful expression of opinion which must be conveyed to
federal decisionmakers.

A strong national defense in an aggressive world is neces-
sary, but in the nuclear age there is no longer defense — there
is only aggression or retaliation. Rather than defend ourselves
anymore, we can only threaten equal or greater devastation.
The nature of war has radically changed in this nuclear age —
it is no longer war, but a mutual suicide pact. Moreover, the
MX and other first-strike nuclear weapons would exponen-
tially increase international tensions and irrationality. This
new generation of weapons leads us toward rather than away
from the edge of nuclear disaster.

Neither the U.S. nor the U.S.S.R. has a substantial margin
of nuclear superiority. A crude numerical equality has de-
veloped between the superpowers, although the U.S. currently
has more warheads. And such talk is rendered absurd, given
the gruesome overkill potential of mutual destruction 20 to 40
times over. The continuing preparation for a holocaust of such
immensity is a crime against God and humanity itself and
must be condemned firmly and without hesitation.

Initiative 91 is a plea from the people to stop this accelerat-
ing madness — not unilaterally, but in all countries possessing
nuclear weapons. A vote for Initiative 91 is a vote for the
future.

s/Christine Torgrimson, Chairman
John McNamer
Diane Waddell

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

INITIATIVE NO. 91

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

THIS INITIATIVE WOULD DECLARE THAT THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA ARE OPPOSED TO THE PLACEMENT
OF MX MISSILES IN THIS STATE. IT ALSO EXPRESSES OPPOSITION TO FURTHER TESTING, DEVELOP-
MENT, OR DEPLOYMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY ANY NATION. PASSAGE OF THIS INITIATIVE IS AN
EXPRESSION OF THE OPINION OF THE VOTERS IN MONTANA AND WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT.

FOR the initiative — I oppose the placement of MX missiles in Montana and the further testing, development
or deployment of nuclear weapons by any nation.

AGAINST the initiative — I do not oppose the placement of MX missiles in Montana and the further testing,
development or deployment of nuclear weapons by any nation.

D
D

INITIATIVE
NO. 92

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
This initiative would expand authorized gambling in Montana, and create a State Gaming Commission. It would
allow blackjack; punchboards; and electronic or mechanical gambling devices that simulate card games, bingo or keno.
Bingo and keno payoffs could be made in cash. The State Gaming Commission would license and regulate all authorized
gambling in Montana including the manufacture, sale and approval of gambling devices. The Commission would set
prize limits for all games. Local governments could assess fees or taxes on gambling establishments, tables and devices.
Operation of a gambling establishment without a license would be a felony.

Fiscal Note
The initiative provides that revenue generated by fees on gambling establishments, distributors and manufacturers
would fund the operation of a State Gaming Commission, which would cost approximately $600,000 each year. Local
governments could also assess specified fees and taxes on gambling establishments. It is not possible to estimate those
revenues.

FOR — expansion of authorized gambling to include blackjack, punchboards and certain electronic or mechan-
ical gambling devices, and creation of a State Gaming Commission.

AGAINST — expansion of authorized gambling to include blackjack, punchboards and certain electronic or
mechanical gambling devices, and creation of a State Gaming Commission.

-15-

Section 1. State policy concerning gaming. (1) The people
declare to be the public policy of this state, that:

(a) Regulation of legalized gambling in Montana has been
inconsistent from county to county and should be consistent
throughout the state.

(b) The development of casino-type gambling with slot
machines, roulette wheels, and craps tables is not appropriate
for Montana and should be kept out of the state; however, a
small expansion of the forms of licensed gamblmg, under firm
state control, can ease the financial burden of local govern-
ments.

(c) Successful regulation of the gaming industry is depen-
dent upon public confidence and trust that licensed gambling
is conducted honestly and competitively and that the gaming
industry is free from criminal and corruptive elements.

(d) Public confidence and trust can only be maintained by
strict regulation of all persons, locations, practices, associa-
tions, and activities related to the operation of licensed gaming
establishments and the manufacture or distribution of gambl-
ing devices and equipment.

(e) All establishments where gaming is conducted and where
gambling devices are operated, and manufacturers, sellers and
distributors of certain gambling devices and equipment in the
state shall therefore be licensed, controlled, and assisted to
protect the public health, safety, morals, good order, and gen-
eral welfare of the inhabitants of the state, to foster the stabil-
ity and success of the gaming industry, and to preserve the
policies of free competition of the state of Montana.

(2) No applicant for a license or other affirmative commis-
sion approval has any right to a license or the granting of the
approval sought. Any license issued or other commission ap-
proval granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter is a
revocable privilege, and no holder acquires any vested right
therein or thereunder.

Section 2. Definitions. As used in this chapter, ( 1) "applic-
ant" means either a corporation whose shares are publicly
traded in a recognized stock exchange, a for-profit corporation
and each of its stockholders, a non-profit corporation, a part-
nership and each of its partners, general or limited, a joint
venture and each of its venturers, or an individual.

(2) "commission" means the gaming commission.

(3) "gambling device" means a punch board or pull tab, an
electronic or mechanical device which simulates the play of an
authorized card game with playing cards, or of a bingo game.

(4) "live action" means non-electronic, and with reference to
bingo, means a form of play in which the numbers are called or
posted by an employee or agent of the licensee.

Section 3. Gaming Commission — membership — quasi-
judicial board.

( 1) There is created a gaming commission.

( 2) The commission consists of five members.

(3) The governor must appoint the members, as provided
under 2-15-124. The governor may only appoint members
whose names have been submitted to the attorney general and
who have been certified by the attorney general as qualified
under the provisions of section 4.

(4) The term of three of the initial appointees is two years.

(5) The commission is allocated to the division of gaming for
administrative purposes only as prescribed in 2-15-121.

(6) The commission is designated as a quasi-judicial board
for purposes of 2-15-124.

Section 4. Qualifications — restrictions. ( 1) The chairman of
the commission must have had at least five years of responsible
administrative experience in public or business administra-
tion or possess broad management skills. He is a full-time
salaried officer of the state.

( 2) One member of the commission must be a certified public
accountant or a licensed public accountant with five years of
progressively responsible experience in general accounting.

(3) One member of the commission must have five years
experience in the field of gaming as a managing owner or
manager of a gaming establishment.

(4) One member of the commission must have five years
experience in the field of manufacturing or marketing gaming
devices.

(5) One member of the commission must be experienced in
the field of investigation, law enforcement, or law. The provi-

sions of 2-15-124(1) regarding an attorney do not apply.

(6) No member of the legislature or person holding any
elective office in state or local government may be appointed to
the commission.

( 7) A member may hold no pecuniary interest in any busi-
ness or organization holding a gaming license under this chap-
ter or doing business with any person or organization licensed
under this chapter.

( 8) Before entering upon the duties of his office, each member
must subscribe to the constitutional oath of office and, in addi-
tion, swear that he is not pecuniarily interested in any busi-
ness or organization holding a gaming license or doing busi-
ness with any such person or organization. The oath of office
must be filed in the office of the secretary of state.

Section 5. Division of gaming — head. ( 1) There is a division
of gaming within the Department of Justice. The division head
is the chairman of the gaming commission.

(2) The division is allocated to the department for adminis-
trative purposes only as prescribed in 2-15-121. However, the
division may hire its own personnel and 2-15-121(2)(d)doesnot

apply. , , . .

Section 6. Powers and duties of division and commission.

( 1) The division of gaming and the gaming commission shall
administer the provisions of this chapter with respect to
gambling establishment licenses and manufacturer's and
distributor's licenses. They must administer them for the
protection of the public and in the public interest in accord-
ance with the policy of this state.

(2) The division must investigate the qualifications of each
applicant under this chapter before any license is issued or any
registration, finding of suitability , or approval of acts or trans-
actions for which commission approval is required or permis-
sion is granted, and must continue to observe the conduct of all
licenses and other persons having a material involvement
directly or indirectly with a licensed gaming operation or re-
gistered holding company by unqualified or disqualified per-
sons, unsuitable persons, or persons whose operations are con-
ducted in an unsuitable manner or in unsuitable or prohibited
places or locations. The division may recommend the denial of
any application, the limitation, conditioning or restriction of
any license, registration, finding of suitability, or approval,
the suspension or revocation of any license, registration, find-
ing of suitability, or approval or the imposition of a fine upon
any person licensed, registered, found suitable, or approved for
any cause deemed reasonable by the board. The commission
may deny any application or limit, restrict, revoke, or suspend
any license, registration, finding of suitability, or approval, or
fine any person licensed, registered, found suitable, or ap-
proved, for any cause deemed reasonable by the commission.

(3) The division and the commission and their agents may:

(a) inspect and examine all premises in which gaming is
conducted or gambling devices or equipment are manufac-
tured, sold, or distributed;

(b) inspect or test all equipment, devices, and supplies in,
upon, or about such premises.

Section 7. Rules — contents — adoption. (1) The commission
may from time to time, adopt, amend, or repeal rules, consis-
tent with the policy, objectives, and purposes of this chapter as
it deems necessary or desirable in the public interest in carry-
ing out the policy and provisions of this chapter. The rules
must be adopted in accordance with the Montana Administra-
tive Procedure Act.

( 2) The rules may, without limiting the general powers con-
ferred in this chapter, include the following:

(a) prescribe the qualifications for a gaming license and for a
manufacturer's, or distributor's license;

(b) prescribe the method and form of application which any
applicant for a gaming license, or for a manufacturer's, or
distributor's license must follow and complete prior to consid-
eration of his application by the division;

(c) prescribe the information to be furnished by any applic-
ant or licensee concerning iLs' antecedents, habits, character,
associates, criminal record, business activities, and financial
affairs, past or present;

id) require fingerprinting or other method of identification of
an applicant or licensee or employee of a licensee;

(e) require any applicant to pay all or any part of the fees and

-16-

\ costs of investigation of such applicant as may be determined
by the division;

(f) prescribe the manner and method of collection and pay-
ment of fees and issuance of licenses;

(g) define and limit the area, games, and devices permitted
and the method of operation of such games and devices for the
purposes of this chapter, including bet and payout limits;

(h) prescribe under which conditions the nonpayment of a
gambling debt by a licensee is grounds for revocation or sus-
pension of his license;

(i) govern the manufacture, sale, and distribution of gambl-
ing devices and equipment.

Section 8. Licensing of gambling establishments. ( 1) The
commission may issue licenses to operate gambling establish-
ments to applicants who demonstrate the necessary quahfica-
tions for such a license, as set forth in rules the commission
shall adopt. In promulgating establishment license rules the
commission shall require that;

(a) an applicant's or its managing principal's past record and
present status in business and as a citizen demonstrate that he
is likely to operate his establishment on a financially sound
basis and in compliance with all applicable laws and regula-
tions;

(b) an applicant or his managing principals be over the
age of 19 and have established residency in the State of Mon-
tana for a sufficient time to have established a reputation for
the qualities required in the preceding sentence;

(c) the premises proposed for licensing are on regular police
beats or sheriff patrols and can be properly policed by local
authorities;

(d) minors will be effectively excluded from so much of the
premises as is used for gambling.

(2) Applicants for licenses, including owners and operators,
may be required by the commission to have their fingerprints
taken for use in determining eligibility for licensure.

(3) The premises of a licensed gambling establishment may
also be used for other lawful businesses, but may not be used
for any form of gambling not made lawful in this chapter and
regulated by the commission.

( 4) The commission shall establish rules for the registration
or informal licensure of recognized and established senior citi-
zen organizations, churches, and community-wide civic events
such as rodeos and fairs, for the playing of live-action bingo.
Applicants qualifying under these criteria may be licensed or
registered for an annual fee, for the conduct of periodic or
irregular live-action bingo or keno games.

Section 9. Limitation on tables and devices in gambling
establishments.

A licensed gambling establishment may not maintain more
than 7 tables and 10 electronic or mechanical devices, used for
the play of approved card games, bingo. An applicant or licen-
see may not hold controlling or substantial interest, as defined
by commission rule, in more than one license.

Section 10. Approval of gambling devices. ( 1) A person may
not sell, offer to sell, assemble, manufacture, or otherwise
trade in an electronic or mechanical gambling device unless
the device is of a type approved by the commission for use in
licensed gambling establishments.

( 2) The commission may approve upon application various
types of electronic or mechanical gambling devices for use in
this state. Before approving a device the commission must find
that it:

(a) is designed to play only games permitted under this
chapter;

(b) is registered with the attorney general of the United
States;

(c) can be played in accordance with all applicable rules of
the commission, including those rules relating to payout per-
centages.

(3) A commission decision on an application for approval of a
device must be made after notice and opportunity for a con-
tested case hearing under the Montana Administrative Proce-
dure Act, and is subject to judicial review as provided in that
act.

(4) Each device approved by the commission for use in this
state is exempt from the provisions of Title 15, United States
Code, section 1172, or that section as it may be amended or

renumbered. To this extent, the State of Montana is exempt
from the provisions of the foregoing section of federal law.

Section 11. Licensing of gambling device distributors. (1) A
person may not sell or otherwise distribute an approved gambl-
ing device to a licensed gambling establishment in this state
unless he holds a distributor's license issued to him by the
commission.

(2) A person may not purchase, lease, borrow, or otherwise
acquire a gambling device for use in this state unless he ac-
quires such device from a distributor licensed by the commis-
sion. Aquisition of gambling devices other than in the manner
authorized by this action is grounds for revocation of an estab-
lishment license.

(3) The Commission shall make rules to establish qualifica-
tions for a distributor's license, consistent with the residency
and age guidelines set forth in section 8 for licensing of gambl-
ing establishments. A license may be issued to an applicant
who possesses these qualifications.

Section 12. Licensing of gambling device manufacturers. ( 1)
A person, wherever located, may not manufacture or assemble
a gambling device for use in this state unless he holds a man-
ufacturer's license issued to him by the commission.

(2) The commission shall make rules to establish qualifica-
tions for a manufacturer's license, consistent with the policies
of this chapter. The rules may require the registration of each
sales or service representative of the manufacturer who works
within this state.

Section 13. Fees — establishment and deposit. ( 1) Applicants
for licenses or for approval of gambling devices must pay the
commission a fee, set by a rule of the commission at a level
sufficient to cover its investigative and administrative costs
incurred on new applications.

(2) Annual fees for the issuance and renewal of licenses are
payable to the commission as follows:

(a) for each gambling establishment, $300.

(b) for each manufacturer or distributor, $1,000.

(3) Renewal fees are due by June 30 of each year. The com-
mission may accept late renewals for good cause and upon
additional payment ofa $30 penalty for 30 days following June
30, then must revoke any license not renewed.

(4) The commission shall deposit all fees and penalties paid
to it with the state treasurer, to be placed in an account in the
earmarked revenue fund for the purpose of administering this
chapter. The commission shall propose budgets for its opera-
tions within the funds available for appropriation in this ac-
count. Funds appropriated from this account by the legislature
and not expended by the commission revert to the general
fund.

Section 14. Local government fees and taxes. ( 1) Cities and
towns may impose on licensed gambling establishments
within their boundaries, and counties may impose on licensed
gambling establishments located outside any city or town,
annual fees not to exceed following limits:

(a) on each establishment, five-eighths of the annual fee
charged by the commission;

(b) on each table used for the authorized card games of
blackjack or poker, $500;

(d) on each live action bingo game, $500;

(e) on the use of punchboards or pull-tabs, whether manual
or mechanical, in an establishment, $250 per establishment.

(2) Local governments may also enact and levy a daily use
tax on each electronic device used for the authorized card
games of blackjack or poker, or for bingo or keno, not to exceed
one dollar per device per day and due not more frequently than
once a month.

( 3) Property taxes levied upon gambling devices and fixtures
gambling establishments may not be levied upon a greater
percentage of market value than is provided by law for other
class nine property, or whatever class fixtures and equipment
used in commercial establishments is assigned to.

(4) A city or a county may license dealers of card games,
operators of bingo or keno games, and persons who service or
repair gambling devices, and may charge a license fee. The
commission shall adopt rules for license criteria and betting

-17-

license fees commensurate with the costs of administration of
such licenses.

(5) No other taxation, licensing, or other revenue measure
may be imposed upon gambling establishments by any county,
city, or town.
Section 15. Section 23-5-103, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-103. Possession of gambling implements prohibited.
Any person who has in his possession or under his control or
who permits to be placed, maintained, or kept in any room,
space, enclosure, or building owned, leased, or occupied by him
or under his management or control any faro box, faro layout,
roulette wheel, roulette table, crap table, punchboord, or any
machine or apparatus of any kind mentioned in 23-5-102 and
not approved by the gaming commission is punishable by a fine
of not less than $ 100 or more than $ 1,000 and may be impris-
oned for not less than 3 months or more than 1 year in the
discretion of the court provided that this section shall not apply
to a public officer or to a person coming into possession thereof
in or by reason of the performance of any official duty and
holding the same to be disposed of according to law."
Section 16. Section 23-5-202, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-202. Application. This part shall not apply to the pro-
visions of part 4 of this chapter, to punchboards or pull-tabs
approved and regulated by the gaming commission, or to the
giving away of cash or merchandise attendance prizes or pre-
miums by public drawings at agricultural fairs or rodeo associ-
ations in this state, and the county fair commissioners of ag-
ricultural fairs or rodeo associations in this state may give
away at such fairs cash merchandise attendance prizes or
premiums by public drawings."
Section 17. Section 23-5-302, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-302. Definitions. As used in this part and unless the
context requires otherwise, the following terms or phrases
have the following meanings: (1) "Authorized card game"
means any card game permitted by this part.

(2) "Card game" means any game played with cards or elec-
tronic devices which simulate cards for which the prize is
money or any item of value."
Section 18. Section 23-5-311, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-311. Authorized card games. ( 1) It is unlawful for any
person to conduct or participate in any card game or make any
tables available for the playing of card games except those card
games authorized by this part.

(2) The card games authorized by this part are and are
limited to the card games known as blackjack or twenty-one,
bridge, cribbage, hearts, panguingue, pinochle, pitch, rummy,
whist, solo, and poker."

( 3) It is unlawful to play blackjack in any form or any other
authorized card game on an electronic or mechanical device,
except in an establishment licensed by the commission.

Section 19. Section 23-5-312, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-312. Prizes not to exceed one hundred dollara limit set
by commission. No prize for any individual game shall exceed a
maximum value of $100 to be set by the commission. Games
shall not be combined in any manner so as to increase the value
of the ultimate prize awarded.

Section 20. Section 23-5-314, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-314. Gambling on cash basis. (1) In every authorized
card game the consideration paid for the chance to play shall be
strictly cash or payee-approved check. Every participant must
present the money with which he intends to play the game at
the time the game is played. However, the host establishment
may conduct and participate inan authorized card game as the
house, and is not subject to this subsection. No eheete, credit
card, note, lOU, or other evidence of indebtedness may be
offered or accepted as part of the price of participating in a card
game or as payment of a debt incurred therein.

{ 2) No action based on such a debt is maintainable in a court
of this state."

Section 21. Section 23-5-402, MCA, is amended to read:
"23-5-402. Definitions. As used in this part, unless the con-
text requires otherwise, the following terms or phrases shall
have the following meanings: < 1) "Game of chance" means the
specific kind of game of chance commonly known as:

(a) "bingo", also known as "keno", in which prizes are
awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a
card which conform to numbers or symbols selected at random^^

played in an establishment licensed by the commission.
(b) "raffles", which are conducted by drawing for prizes.
(2) "Equipment" means:

(a) with respect to bingo, the receptacle and numbered ob-
jects drawn from it, the master board upon which such objects
are placed as drawn, the cards or sheets bearing numbers or
other designations to be covered and the objects used to cover
them, the boards or signs, however operated, used to announce
or display the numbers or designations as they are drawn,
public address system, and all other articles essential to the
operation, conduct, and playing of bingo; or

(b) with respect to raffles, the implements, devices, and
machines designed, intended, or used for the conduct of raffles
and the identification of the winning number or unit and the
ticket or other evidence of right to participate in raffles."

Section 22. Section 23-5-412, MCA, is amended to read:

"23-5-412. Bingo prizes. Bingo prizes -wmat- may be in tangi-
ble personal property only and not or in money, cash, stocks,
bonds, evidences of indebtedness, or other intangible personal
property and must not exceed the maximum value of $100 as
set by rule of the commission for each individual bingo award.
The price for an individual bingo card shall not exceed 60 cento
be set by the commission. It shall be unlawful to, in any
manncr,-combine any awards so as to increase the ultimate
value of such award except as permitted under rules of the
commission."

Section 23. Repealers. Sections 23-5-321, 23-5-322, 23-5-421,
and 23-5-422, MCA, are repealed.

Section 24. Penalty. Any person who sells, leases or operates
a form of gambling or device for gambling regulated by the
commission, or who permits his premises to be used for gambl-
ing, except under license issued by the commission, commits a
felony. On conviction thereof he shall be punished by a fine of
not less than $1,000 nor more than $50,000, or by imprison-
ment not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and impris-
onment. This penalty does not apply to raffles licensed by
county commissioners under 23-5-413, to bingo games in
churches, or to sports pools.

Section 25. Severability. If a part of this act is invalid, all
valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in
effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its
applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications
that are severable from the invalid applications.

Section 26. Effective dates — funding. ( 1) Sections 1 through
5 and 25 of this act are effective March 1, 1983. Section 6
through 24 of this act are effective October 1, 1983.

(2) The 1983 legislature is requested to appropriate suffi-
cient moneys from the general fund to enable the state gaming
commission to begin its operations and administration of this
act, and to reimburse the general fund with a compensatory
appropriation from the earmarked revenue account estab-
lished under section 13 after sufficient funds are in that ac-
count.

Section 27. Existing local government licenses — transition.
An establishment conducting gambling under license from a
unit of local government on September 30, 1983 may continue
to conduct such gambling until expiration of that license. The
commission shall recognize such existing licenses as valid for
the forms of gambling permitted thereunder and may not re-
quire separate licensure of these establishments before July 1,
1984. However, an establishment may not offer any form of
gambling made lawful under this act without a state license
from the commission.

Section 28. Codification Sections 3, 4, and 5 are to be codified
in Title 2, MCA, and Sections 1, 2, 6 through 14, and 24 shall be
codified in Title 23, Chapter 5, MCA.

ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 92

Initiative #92 proposes gambling of a specific, controlled
nature, uniform throughout the state with the purpose of pro-
viding an industry besides agriculture, lumber, and mining. It
is not about casinos, slot machines, or the bright lights of Las
Vegas. It js^about controlling gambling in a rational, uniform
manner resulting in jobs for our citizens, revenue for our local
governments, and an extra attraction for tourists.

Initative #92 does provide for an expansion of gambling
by legalizing blackjack. Also, it recognizes as legal and taxa-

-18-

ble, punchboards, pulltabs, and electronic games such as are
now found operating in Montana in a patchwork fashion.
Blackjack is added to the legal games with an eye toward
attracting tourists. Its drawing power is recognized by North
Dakota and Alberta — both have recently legalized the game.
South Dakota voters will soon consider legalization of the
game.

Principally, I #92 is not for expansion. It is for control;
control of the people who operate, distribute, or manufacture
gambling devices; control of the money that can be wagered;
control of the number of gambling devices permitted each
operator.

Initiative #92 is for uniformity. Uniform application is es-
sential to control gambling. To furnish the necessary control
and uniformity, I #92 establishes a State Gaming Commis-
sion funded by a license fee on those directly involved. In-
terpretation of the law must re-st with a central body. The State
Gaming Commission would clearly state which games are
legal within the strict limits established by the initiative.

A license may be issued to an applicant only aifter a thorough
investigation of his entire background. Failure to meet Com-
mission standards is cause for rejecting the application.
Licenses are non-transferable and may be revoked by the
Commission. Operation, distribution, or manufacture of gam-
ing devices without a state license would be a felony punisha-
ble by fines of up to $50,000 and/or five years in jail.

After obtaining a State Gaming License an operator would
pay further business taxes to local government. Live-action
games — blackjack, poker, keno, and bingo — and electronic
games simulating authorized live-action games would pay an
annual local fee of up to $500 plus $1.00 per device per day. The
local law enforcement agency would enforce the gambling reg-
ulations issued by the Gaming Commission.

The impact on you, the voter and taxpayer, comes largely
from the number of jobs gambling creates. In Fargo, North
Dakota, nearly 1,000 people have jobs directly related to
gambling. The people employed in gambling and related fields
will pay taxes and spend money in the same places as you.
Besides the jobs created, the extra money spent by tourists is
re-invested in the economy by the operators; mostly indepen-
dent, small businessmen who live and work in Montana; who
put the majority of their profits back into Montana by hiring
Montanans; by paying taxes and business fees; by shopping in
the same stores you shop in.

Initiative #92 isTor control and for a rational approach to
gambling. ARE YOU? ^/j^^k D. Snyder, Chairman

Vonnie Haeffner
Gail Sammons

ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE NO. 92

Montana should reject Initiative 92.

Montanans and their children will suffer if we have ex-
panded gambling.

Initative 92 will do exactly what it says on the ballot: EX-
PAND gambling. Montana, in effect will be a big time gambl-
ing state. For anybody who wants to gamble, plenty of oppor-
tunity exists right now. It will continue to exist. Montana does
not need any expansion that includes casino games: blackjack,
electronic and mechanical gambling devices, punchboards, etc.

The defeat of Initiative 92 will not remove present gambling.
The passage of Initiative 92 will open it up.

The defeat of Initiative 92 will retain local control and local
licensing authority. The passage of Initiative 92 will abolish
local licensing authority and limit local ability to tax and
charge fees.

The Initiative limits the state commission to fees sufficient
to cover the cost of investigation and administrative costs
incurred in processing "new applications" only. The cost of
enforcement will fall on the local taxpayers, local property
owners and local welfare rolls, not on the gambling establish-
ments.

It is our contention that the other fees which would be al-
lowed local government from gambling are insufficient to
cover the local expenses of enforcement and other associated
local government costs.

It is a common misconception that gambling will appeal to

tourists only. The fact is that gambling will adversely affect
Montana families. "Nevada citizens gamble more than
tourists. Accessibility turns people into gamblers. Three times
more compulsive gamblers live in Nevada, and they gamble
individually twice as much money as do people of other states."
(Mario Puzo, Inside Las Vegas)

Today's families have enough stress without the added prob-
lems and anxieties that inevitably come with the betting and
losing of family income. And far too often consideration for the
family is ignored when gambling becomes compulsive for one
or more family members.

A vote for Initiative 92 means a vote for a change in our
Montana life-style. Gambling and crime go hand in hand. The
chief of police of Atlantic City reports that his department has
faced a 2000 percent increase in demand for its services since
gambling was legalized in 1976. (THE PRESS, Atlantic City)
The mob and organized crime have ignored Montana in large
part until now. We don't want their interest and attention.
Montana should reject Initiative 92.

s/Bob Brown, Chairman
Carl Zabrocki
George Harper
Lester Loble, II
John Frankino

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 92

We'can hardly say it better than the locally-elected chief law
enforcement officials of Montana, the County Attorneys,
speaking through their Montana County Attorneys Associa-
tion:

CASINOS?

"'**while the purported policy of Initiative 92 is that casino
gambling in Montana is not appropriate, in fact it specifically
authorizes the creation of gambling casinos by authorizing
casino games;***"

EXPANSION?

"***Initiative 92 purports to authorize only a small expan-
sion of gambling in Montana, in reality it significantly en-
larges the nature and scope of gambling activities in
Montana;***"

CONTROL?

"***that while Initiative 92 calls for strict regulation of
gambling, it fails to provide adequate and sufficient law en-
forcement resources for control and regulation;***"

ENFORCEMENT?

"***the enforcement provisions established by Initiative 92
to assure compliance with the gambling laws of the state of
Montana are totally inadequate to protect the health, welfare
and safety of the people of Montana;***"

IMPACTS - JUST JOBS?

"'**experience in other states with expanded gambling simi-
lar to that proposed by Initiative 92 has clearly demonstrated
that expanded gambling leads to an increased rate of crime,
additional welfare burdens and associated family and domestic
problems, all of which must be addressed by criminal justice
and social welfare agencies;***"

We agree with the Association's conclusion:

"***that the Montana County Attorneys Association
strongly opposes Initiative 92 which would significantly ex-
pand gambling activity in Montana.*** "

s/Bob Brown, Chairman
George Harper
Lester Loble II
John Frankino

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
INITIATIVE NO. 92

The opposition statement of rejection relies on sensational
statements and emotionalism with little regard for facts.

I #92 does not turn Montana into a "big time gambling
state". Blackjack is the only added game that cannot be found
in many Montana counties. I #92 settles the controversy sur-
rounding electronic and mechanical devices by legalizing them
throughout the state. There is no "etc.".

I #92 empowers cities and counties to assess business fees
on gambling. A single business operating to the extent of the

-19-

initiative limitations would pay as much as $7,000 in fees
directly to its local government. The $5 million collected in this
manner more than ofTsets additional enforcement costs, par-
ticularily if expensive court battles to determine what gaming
is legal will no longer be required.

We agree that today's families are under stress. Who isn't?
Much of that stress comes from the lack of employment oppor-
tunities. I #92 will create 8,000 new jobs. That's nearly 20
percent of Montana's expected mid-winter unemployment. In
Fargo, North Dakota — that state recently legalized blackjack
— 1,000 people were employed directly by gambling in the first

year. As for tourism, of course tourists are not the only gamb-
lers, but it does draw them. In Fargo, hotel occupation was up
100 percent the first year.

Gambling has always been a part of the Montana life-style.
The lopsided vote on the gambling section of Montana's 1972
Constitution reflects this. Montanans approved gambling
overwhelmingly. It is time to fulfill that mandate. For control:
for the future; for Initiative #92.

s/Jack D. Snyder, Chairman
Vonnie Haeffner
Gail Sammons

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

INITIATIVE NO. 92

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

Attorney General's E.xplanatory Statement
This initiative would expand authorized gambling in Montana and create a State Gaming Commission. It would allow
blackjack; punchboards; and electronic or mechanical gambling devices that simulate card games, bingo or keno. Bingo
and keno payoffs could be made in cash. The State Gaming Commission would license and regulate all authorized
gambling in Montana including the manufacture, sale and approval of gambling devices. The Commission would set
prize limits for all games. Local governments could assess fees or taxes on gambling establishments, tables and devices.
Operation of a gambling establishment without a license would be a felony.

FISCAL NOTE
THE INITIATIVE PROVIDES THAT REVENUE GENERATED BY FEES ON GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENTS
DISTRIBUTORS AND MANUFACTURERS WOULD FUND THE OPERATION OF A STATE GAMING COMMIS-
SION, WHICH WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY $600,000 EACH YEAR. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COULD ALSO
ASSESS SPECIFIED FEES AND TAXES ON GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENTS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTI-
MATE THOSE REVENUES.

FOR — expansion of authorized gambling to include blackjack, punchboards and certain electronic or mechan-
ical gambling devices, and creation of a State Gaming Commission.

AGAINST — expansion of authorized gambling to include blackjack, punchboards and certain electronic or
mechanical gambling devices and creation of a State Gaming Commission.

□

INITIATI'VE
NO. 94

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement
This initiative would abolish the quota system for some beer and wine licenses. Businesses with sufficient kitchen and
dining room equipment to sell meals to the public could apply for a license to sell beer and wine. The availability of those
licenses would not be based on population. Establishments holding licenses under the present quota system would be
entitled to a transferable credit on their state taxes for any loss in the fair market value of that license.

Fiscal Note
The transferable tax credit granted to current license holders would reduce state tax collections by approximately
$2-$5 million over a five year period. The state would receive a revenue increase from the fees for new beer and wine
licenses. The fees are generally $400 per license.

FOR abolishing the quota system on beer and wine licenses for restaurants and prepared food businesses.
AGAINST abolishing the quota system on beer and wine licenses for restaurants and prepared food businesses.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Licensing of a restaurant or
prepared-food business. ( 1) A license to sell beer at retail may
be issued by the department to any person, firm, or corporation
approved by the department as fit and proper to sell beer if the
department finds, on a satisfactory showing by the applicant,
that the sale of beer would be supplementary to a restaurant or
prepared-food business. For the purposes of this section, "re-
staurant or prepared-food business" means a business with
adequate kitchen and dining room equipment to serve
bonafide meals to the general public.

(2) A person, firm, or corporation holding a license issued
under subsection ( 1) of this section may apply to the depart-
ment under 16-4-105(2) for an amendment to the license per-
mitting the holder to sell wine as well as beer.

( 3) The number of licenses the department may issue under
subsection 1 1) of this section is not limited by the quota restric-
tions of 16-4-105.

(4) A license issued under subsection (1) of this section is
nontransferable, nonassignable, and expires automatically if
the sale of beer or beer and wine ceases to be supplementary to
a restaurant or prepared-food business.

-20-

Section 2. Section 16-4-106, MCA, is amended to read:
"16-4-106. Beer license transfers. Except as provided in
[section 1], A a transfer of any brewer's, beer wholesaler's,
table wine distributor's, 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 qual-
ifies under this code."

Section 3. Section 16-4-501, MCA, is amended to read:
"16-4-501. License and permit fees. (1) 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:

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

(b) each beer wholesaler, $400; each table wine distributor,
$400;

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

id) each restaurant or prepared-food business beer retailer.
$200; with a wine license amendment, an additional $200;

(e) for a license to sell beer at retail for off-premises con-
sumption 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;

(f) any unit of a nationally chartered veterans' organization.
$50.

(2) The permit fee under 16-4-301(1) is computed at the rate
of $15 a day for each day beer and table wine are sold at those
events lasting 2 or more days but in no case be less than $30.

(3) The permit fee under 16- 4- 30 It 2) is $10 for the sale of beer
and table wine only or $20 for the sale of all alcoholic bever-
ages.

( 4) Passenger carrier licenses shall 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) The annual fee for resort retail liquor licenses within a
given resort area shall be $2,000 for each license.

( 7) Each licensee licensed under the quotas of 16-4-201 shall
pay an annual license fee as follows:

(a) except as hereinafter provided, for each license outside of
incorporated cities and incorporated towns or in incorporated
cities and incorporated cities and incorporated towns with a
population of less than 2,000, $250 for a unit of a nationally
chartered veterans' organization and $400 for all other licen-
sees;

(b) except as hereinafter provided, for each license in incor-
porated cities with a population of more than 2.000 and less
than 5,000 or within a distance of 5 miles thereof, measured
over the shortest public road or highway from the nearest
entrance of the premises to be licensed to the nearest boundary
of such city. $350 for a unit of a nationally chartered veterans'
organization and $500 for all other licensees;

(c) except as hereinafter provided, for each license in incor-
porated cities with a population of more than 5,000 and less
than 10,000 or within a distance of 5 miles thereof, measured
over the shortest public road or highway from the nearest
entrance of the premises to be licensed to the nearest boundary
of such city, $500 for a unit of a nationally chartered veterans'
organization and $650 for all other licensees;

(d) for each license in incorporated cities with a population of
10,000 or more or within a distance of 5 miles thereof, meas-
ured over the shortest public road or highway from the nearest
entrance of the premises to be licensed to the nearest boundary
of such city. $650 for a unit of a nationally chartered veterans'
organization and $800 for all other licensees;

(e) the distance of 5 miles from the corporate limits of any
incorporated cities and incorporated towns is measured over
the shortest public road or highway from the nearest entrance
of the premises to be 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 bound-
aries of two or more incorporated towns of different popula-
tions, 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 incorporated city and any por-
tion of the incorporated town or incorporated city is without a
5-mile limit, the license fee chargeable by the smaller incorpo-
rated town or incorporated city applies and shall be paid by the
applicant.

(f) an applicant for the issuance of an original license to be
located in areas described in subsection (di of this subsection
shall pay a one-time original license fee of $20, 000 for any such
license issued. The one-time license 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.

(8) The fee for one all-beverage license to a public airport
shall be $800. This license is non-transferable.

(91 The license fees herein provided for are exclusive of and
in addition to other license fees chargeable in Montana for the
sale of alcoholic beverages."

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Retail beer and wine license
credit. ( 1) A person or firm who holds a license to sell beer at
retail or beer and wine at retail issued before November 1,
1982, under subsection (1) of 16-4-105 is entitled to a credit
against the tax imposed by 15-30-103.

(2) The amount of the credit allowed under subsection (1) of
this section is equal to the difference between the fair market
value of the license on November 1, 1982, and the fair market
value of the license on January 1, 1983. The fair market value
of the license on November 1, 1982, must be determined with-
out consideration of any affect the initiative exempting re-
staurants and prepared-food businesses from the retail beer
license quota system may have had on the value.

(3) The taxpayer must determine the amount of the credit
and enter the amount on the taxpayer's return in a manner
prescribed by the department. The department may revise the
amount claimed and examine records and persons pursuant to
15-30-145.

( 4) If the holder of the license is a partnership, each partner
may claim a proportional part of the credit.

(5) If the holder of the license is an electing small business
corporation under 15-31-202, each shareholder may claim a
proportional part of the credit.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Limitation — carryover of un-
used credit. ( 1) The credit allowed under [section 4] for any
taxable year of the taxpayer may not exceed the lesser of:

(a) one-quarter of the total credit allowable under [section 4]
or transferred to the taxpayer under [sections 6 or 9[; or

(b) the taxpayer's tax liability for that year.

(2) Any portion of the credit not allowable under subsection
( 1) of this section is carried forward to each succeeding taxable
year of the taxpayer.

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Transfer of credit - notice. { 1) A
person or firm entitled to a credit under [section 4[ may. after
giving notice to the department, transfer all or part of the
credit to any person, firm, or corporation. The transferee-
taxpayer may apply the credit against the tax imposed by
15-30-103 or 15-31-101, 15-31-121. and 15-31-122, subject to
[sections 5 and 8].

( 2) The notice required by subsection ( 1) of this section must
include the following:

(a) name and address of the transferor and transferee;

(b) amount of the credit originally claimed by the transferor
under [section 4);

(d) a copy of the agreement transferring the credit, including
the amount of the credit transferred; and

(e) any other information required by the department.
NEW SECTION. Section 7. Corporate retail beer or beer and

wine license credit. (DA corporation that holds a license to sell
beer at retail or beer and wine at retail issued before November
1, 1982, under subsection ( 1) of 16-4-105 is entitled to a credit
against the taxes imposed by 15-31-101, 15-31-121, and
15-31-122.

( 2) The amount of the credit allowed under sub.section ( 1) of
this section is equal to the difference between the fair market
value of the license on November 1, 1982, and the fair market
value of the license on January 1, 1983. The fair market value

-21-

of the license on November 1, 1982, must be determined with-
out consideration of any affect the initiative exempting re-
staurants and prepared-food businesses from the retail beer
license quota system may have had on the value.

( 3) The taxpayer must determine the amount of the credit
and enter the amount on the taxpayer's return in a manner
prescribed by the department. The department may revise the
amount claimed and examine records and persons pursuant to
15-31-503 and 15-31-505.

(4) A corporation engaged in a partnership that holds a
license may claim a proportional part of the credit.

NEW SECTION. Section 8. Limitation — carryover of un-
used credit. 1 1) The credit allowed under [section 7] for any
taxable year of the taxpayer may not exceed the lesser of:

(a) one-quarter of the total credit allowable under [section 7]
or transferred to the taxpayer under [sections 6 or 9[; or

(b) the taxpayer's tax liability for that year.

( 2) Any portion of the credit not allowed under subsection ( 1)
of this section is carried forward to each succeeding taxable
year of the taxpayer.

NEW SECTION. Section 9. Transfer of credit - notice. ( 1) A
corporation entitled to a credit under [section 7] may, after
giving notice to the department, transfer all or part of the
credit to any person, firm, or corporation. The transferee-
taxpayer may apply the credit against the tax imposed by
15-30-103 or 15-31-101, 15-31-121, and 15-31-122, subject to
[sections 5 and 8].

( 2) The notice required by subsection ( 1) of this section must
include the following:

(a) name and address of the transferor and transferee;

(b) amount of the credit originally claimed by the transferor
under [section 7];

( d I a copy of the agreement transferring the credit, including
the amount of credit transferred; and

(e) any other information required by the department.

Section 10. Codification instruction. ( 1) Section 1 is intended
to be codified as an integral part of Title 16, chapters 1 through
6, and the provisions of Title 16, chapters 1 through 6 apply to
section 1.

(2) Sections 4, 5, and 6 are intended to be codified as an
integral part of Title 15, chapter 30, and the provisions of Title
15, chapter 30, apply to sections 4, 5, and 6.

(3) Sections 7, 8, and 9 are intended to be codified as an
integral part of Title 15, chapter 31, and the provisions of Title
15, chapter 31, apply to sections 7, 8, and 9.

Section 11. Severability. If a part of this act is invalid, all
valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in
effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its
applications, the part remains in effeit in all valid applications
that are severable from the invalid applications.

Section 12. Effective date — applicability. This act is effec-
tive January 1, 1983 and.applies to tax years beginning after
December 31, 1982.

ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 94

Montana law imposes a quota on the number of wine and
beer licenses issued by the state. Because of this artificial
shortage, these licenses cost up to $ 40,000 i n some areas, which
is much more than most small or family-owned restaurants
can afford. This initiative would abolish the quota on restaur-
ant wine and beer licenses.

Certain types of restaurants, such as pizza parlors and
gourmet restaurants, can't compete successfully without a
wine and beer license; they either go broke or don't get estab-
lished initially. Many restaurants around the state will fold if
this initiative fails. But businesses aren't the only victim;
consumers also suffer. They are denied the wide variety of
innovative restaurants that would thrive in a market not re-
stricted by the quota.

To solve these problems, this initiative would allow a re-
staurant that wanted to complement its menu with wine and
beer to buy the necessary licen.se for $400. The license would be
exi-mpt from the quota. (Note; the initiative does not affect the
quota placed on liquor licenses.) Of course many restaurants
would not want to sell wine or beer. But the point of this

initiative is that individual restaurants should make that de-
cision, not agencies in Helena.

Naturally it would be unfair to penalize someone who relied
on the present system and invested money in an expensive
wine and beer license. Thus the initiative offers a tax credit to
current license holders for the decrease in the value of licenses
caused by passage of this initiative. The state has estimated
this tax credit will reduce revenue by less than $1 million over
each of five years, or less than one tenth of one percent of
annual revenue. In reality the effect will even be smallerdue to
increased jobs in the restaurant industry and increased re-
venue from license fees.

The need for reform of the wine and beer quota became
obvious last summer. Because of population increa.ses, the
state issued three new licenses; over thirty restaurants around
the state submitted applications. In the ensuing legal battle
these restaurants spent over $100,000 on legal fees. In addi-
tion, the state had to pay for the legal proceedings, bad feelings
were created among the restaurants, and finally consumers
were hurt because many deserving restaurants were denied
licenses.

A solution by the legislature appeared unlikely because in
the past special interests have successfully stified every at-
tempt to loosen the quota. Consequently this initiative was
drafted and sent to over 800 Montanans for comment, includ-
ing representatives in the legislature, banking business, re-
staurant industry and bar owners. All suggestions were incor-
porated that furthered our goal of deregulating an unfair sys-
tem in an equitable fashion.

Please, help free up Montana's economy and remove this
unfair restriction imposed on restaurants and consumers. Vote
YES on Initiative #94 to abolish the quota system on restaur-
ant wine and beer licenses.

s/Duncan Scott
Gar>- Palm
Don Doig

ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE NO. 94

INITIATIVE 94 WILL COST YOU, THE TAXPAYERS
OF THE STATE, IN EXCESS OF
30 MILLION DOLLARS.
The fiscal note indicates the tax credit authorized by the
initiative, will cost the state up to 5 million dollars. This is
unrealistically low. The owners of existing licenses have a
valuable property right protected by law just like any other
property owner. The initiative does not provide for just com-
pensation. It only provides for a tax credit that must be used or
sold within four years. The tax credit is questionable compen-
sation to meet the test of just compensation because it has no
value if the license owner cannot use the tax credit or sell it
profitably within four years.

There is no shortage of access to beer and wine in Montana at
this time. Any problems with existing distribution of wine and
beer can be addressed by the legislature. There is no reason to
spend 30 million dollars to fix something that does not need
fixing.

s/J.D. Lynch, Charman
W. J. Fabrega
Donald W. Larson
Philip W. Strope

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 94

The proponents of Initiative 94 want to pass a law that will
cost the people of this state a minimum of 5 million and possi-
bly as much as 30 million tax dollars to make a wine and beer
license available to certain pizza parlors and gourmet restaur-
ants. We think the initiative would be a bad law because it
would cost too much and would benefit too few people. The next
legislature can deal with any problems in the wine and beer
license law. We urge a no vote on Initiative 94 to save tax
dollars.

s/J. D. Lynch, Chairman
W. J. Fabrega
Donald W. Larson
Philip W. Strope

-22-

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
INITIATIVE NO. 94

Opponents raise four objections. Each can be easily refuted:
NO SHORTAGE OF LICENSES EXISTS

A quota by its very nature causes shortages. That's why the
lucky recipient of a $400 license under the current system can
immediately sell it in some areas for $40,000. Because of this
shortage, Montana consumers are denied a wider variety of
restaurants.
TAX CREDIT IS INSUFFICIENT COMPENSATION

Opponents argue the tax credit is insufficient compensation
because it must be used within four years. In fact there is no
such limitation. The tax credit may be carried forward indefi-
nitely. Furthermore, if the current license holder can't use the
tax credit, he may sell it to someone who can. So even poor
license holders who normally wouldn't be helped by a tax credit
are treated fairly.

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

COST OF TAX CREDIT

Opponents claim the tax credit will reduce revenue by $30
million. This is ridiculous. After studying the initiative the
Attorney Gieneral concluded revenue would be reduced $2-5
million, and this is spread over at least 5 years, or less than $1
million per year.
LEGISLATURE CAN SOLVE PROBLEM

It's doubtful the legislature will fix the problem. In the past
bar-owner lobbyists have successfully prevented needed re-
form. To free up the system, voters have had to rely on initia-
tives, as in 1978 when they overwhelmingly supported an
initiative to allow wine sales in grocery stores.

Please, help eliminate government-imposed monopolies and
let free enterprise work: SUPPORT 1-94.

s/Duncan Scott
Gary Palm
Don Doig

INITIATIVE 94

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

FISCAL NOTE
THE TRANSFERABLE TAX CREDIT GRANTED TO CURRENT LICENSE HOLDERS WOULD REDUCE STATE
TAX COLLECTIONS BY APPROXIMATELY $2-5 MILLION OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. THE STATE WOULD
RECEIVE A REVENUE INCREASE FROM THE FEES FOR NEW BEER AND WINE LICENSES. THE FEES ARE
GENERALLY $400 PER LICENSE.

I I FOR abolishing the quota system on beer and wine licenses for restaurants and prepared food businesses.

I I AGAINST abolishing the quota system on beer and wine licenses for restaurants and prepared food businesses.

INITIATIVE
NO. 95

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Under this initiative the state would take one-fourth (25^7^ ) of all future deposits to the permanent coal tax trust and
invest it in Montana's economy. The state would make no direct loans, but would emphasize investments in new or
expanding enterprises.

The initiative would also create an economic development fund, using a portion of the interest from the coal tax trust.
After determining how much interest to allocate to the economic development fund the legislature may spend money
from the fund to support economic development in the state.

Fiscal Note
The amount invested in Montana economic development from the coal tax trust would increase each year to an
estimated total of $134.6 million by 1989. Projections have not been made beyond 1989. Such investment could reduce
the amount of interest earned on the trust.

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

Section 1. Purpose of the coal tax trust fund. The people of Montana establish that the intent of the permanent coal tax
trust fund, as created by Article IX, section 5 of the Montana Constitution, is:

(1) to compensate future generations for the loss of a valuable and depletable resource and to meet any economic,
social, and environmental impacts caused by coal development not otherwise provided for by other coal tax sources; and
(2) to develop a stable, strong and diversified economy which meets the needs of Montana residents both now and in the
future while maintaining and improving a clean and healthful environment as required by Article IX, section 1 of the
Montana Constitution.

-23-

Section 2. Use of the coal tax trust fund for economic development. Objectives for investment of the permanent coal tax
trust fund are to diversify, strengthen and stabilize the Montana economy and to increase Montana employment and
business opportunities while maintaining and improving a clean and healthful environment.

Section 3. Investment of 25 percent of the coal tax trust fund in the Montana economy.

( 1 ) Twenty-five percent of all revenue deposited after June 30, 1983 into the permanent coal tax trust fund established
in section 17-6-203(5), MCA, shall be invested in the Montana economy with special emphasis on investments in new or
expanding locally-owned enterprises.

(2) In determining the probable income to be derived from investment of this revenue, as required by section
17-6-201(1), MCA, the long-term benefit to the Montana economy shall be considered.

(3) The State may not use this revenue to make direct loans.

(4) The Legislature may provide additional procedures to implement this section.

Section 4. Establishment of a Montana economic development fund. A Montana economic development fund is
created. A portion of the interest income from the permanent coal tax trust fund created in section 17-6-203(5), MCA,
shall be deposited in the fund as determined by the Legislature. Monies, if any, appropriated by the Legislature from the
Economic Development Fund shall be used only for programs consistent with the objectives in [Section 2].

Section 5. Severability. If part of this act is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in
effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications
that are severable from the invalid applications.

Section 6. Effective date. This act shall be effective July 1, 1983.

FOR investing part of the coal severance tax permanent trust fund in the Montana economy and creating a
Montana economic development fund.

AGAINST investing part of the coal severance tax permanent trust fund in the Montana economy and creating
a Montana economic development fund.

ARGUMENT FOR INITIATIVE NO. 95

Montana money should be put to work in Montana. In-
itiative 95 would take a small but significant step in this
direction. The first part of the Initiative would require that
25*^ of the future coal tax revenues deposited to the Coal Tax
Consitutional Trust Fund must be invested in the Montana
economy, primarily in new and expanding locally-owned en-
terprises.

One of the most critical elements necessary for economic
growth is capital. When businesses expand or new businesses
start, jobs are created. In either case, capital is required.

Montana controls over 1.2 billion dollars in state funds, one
of the largest sources of capital in the United States. Yet
almost ail of this money (and especially the Coal Tax Constitu-
tional Trust Fund) is sent out of state to help create jobs in
other states and foreign countries.

The Board of Investments has had successful experience in
investing in Montana mortgages (primarily FHA and VA
guaranteed home mortgages), in certificates of deposit in Mon-
tana banks, and in debentures of Montana corporations. We
believe Montana would benefit if more state money and par-
ticularly coal trust money were invested in this manner. Other
investments that would benefit the Montana economy could be
made without jeopardizing the safety of the principal.

The safety of the principal would not be compromised. The
"prudent man" rule requiring the utmost care in making in-
vestments is expressly adopted in the text of the Initiative. The
Board of Investments would, however, be permitted to invest
at lower than maximum rates of interest if that investment
will result in a concrete long-term benefit to the Montana
economy.

The second part of the Initiative would create an Economic
Development Fund out of the interest income from the coal
trust fund. It would be used for strengthening, stabilizing, and
diversifying the Montana economy. The amount of money to be
placed in this fund and the specific uses of the fund w-ould be
determined by the legislature each session.

The following uses have been suggested for legislative con-
sideration: 1.) promotion of economic development by the De-
partment of Commerce including advertising for new firms to
locate in Montana; 2.) training and retraining for the new jobs;
3.) tourism promotion; 4.) university research that will stimu-
late the growth of small businesses; 5.) stimulating housing
construction: 6.> making industrial revenue-bond financing
available to support loans to family farmers for farm acquisi-
tion and loans to small businesses; 7.) stimulating municipal
construction by helping local governments sell municipal

bonds at lower interest rates; and 8.) encouraging the forma-
tion of equity and venture capital in Montana by the private
sector through government incentives.

Passage of the Initiative could go a long way towards
strengthening our economy in Montana and creating more job
opportunities. It is farsighted to use our coal tax revenue to
strengthen and diversify our economy to minimize the
economic shock that will come when the coal is gone.

s/Daniel Kemmis
Thomas E. Towe
Bill Christiansen

ARGUMENT AGAINST INITIATIVE NO. 95

Initiative 95 should not be passed! It is ambiguous, con-
tradictory, and probably unconstitutional. Precise reasons
why it should not be passed are as follows:

1. It is discriminatory in favoring a few with lower-priced,
lower-equity loans, thus providing unfair competition to
business borrowing in the regular channels.

2. The Coal Tax Trust Fund was established to benefit future
generations. 1-95 uses the money now for high risk,
speculative ventures.

3. It opens the door for direct loans by State (Government,
which then leads to the following problems:

a. It creates more bureaucracy.

b. There are no reality checks, as there are in a free
market, and there is no profit motivation for efficiency.

c. It gives Government control of credit and wealth and
results in political patronage.

4. I 95 violates the constitutionally mandated Board of In-
vestments "Prudent Man Rule" and forces 25'7r of the fund
into Montana investments of high risk nature.

5. It will promote irrational behavior on the part of borrow-
ers as they try to qualify for lower interest, more favorable
term loans.

6. Previous experience with such programs in Montana in
1915 resulted in a loss to the State of Montana.

7. It is a direct subsidy to a chosen few, at the expense of
Montana Taxpayers, as these funds could instead be used
to lower taxes, construction of roads or state buildings or
other state projects, instead of unsound loans.

8. It is unrealistic to believe additional loans, or low priced
loans, in themselves will stimulate business. Business
needs markets, adequate cash How, efficient management
and quality labor to be successful.

9. The Initiative sponsors say it is purposefully "open ended"

-24-

and will be a mandate to the Legislature for imple-
mentation. In fact, the supporters can not determine
how initiative 95 can be implemented in a non-political
and fair manner.
10. This initiative is opposed by the Montana State Board of
Investments, the Montana Chamber of Commerce and the
Montana Bankers Association.
In conclusion, it should be noted the supporters of Initiative
95 are promoting a government controlled financial market
place under the label of "economic democracy."

s/Harold C. Nelson, Chairman
Ken Nordtvedt
Robert Reiquam

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT FOR
INITIATIVE NO. 95

At press time, no Rebuttal of the Argument For Initiative
No. 95 had been filed.

REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT AGAINST
INITIATIVE NO. 95

The opponents of 1-95, in their statement, betray the weak-
ness of their arguments by resorting to untruths, half-truths,
and innuendo. For example:

L) We find no evidence ofthe Board oflnvestments being on
record in opposition to 1-95.

2.) The opponents say that 1-95 "opens the door for direct

HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT:

INITIATIVE NO. 95

loans by State Government." In fact, the Initiative very clearly
and forcefully closes that door, with respect to the investment
ofthe Trust Fund, with these words: "The State may not use
this revenue to make direct loans."

3.) The opponents say that 1-95 violates the "constitution-
ally mandated" prudent man rule. This is doubly untrue, since
the prudent man rule is statutory, not constitutional, and in
any event the Initiative specifically adopts, by reference to the
statute, the prudent man rule.

4.) The Initiative requires that the money be safely in-
vested, and all the opponents' language about "high risk" is
nothing more than a scare tactic.

5.) It is the present system of investment which ignores
future generations; we invest now for the highest monetary
return we can get, and we spent that return. 1-95 proposes to
invest at a sometimes lower rate of return when that will lead
to greater long-term benefits for the economy.

When high interest rates are causing Montana's family
farms and small businesses to fail in record numbers, a part of
the Coal Trust Fund should be made available for safe invest-
ments in Montana. As a traditionally capital short state we
owe this much to all Montanans.

s/Daniel Kemmis
Bill Christiansen
Thomas E. To we

A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement

Under this initiative the state would take one-fourth (25'7f ) of all future deposits to the permanent coal tax trust and
invest it in Montana's economy. The state would make no direct loans, but would emphasize investments in new or
expanding enterprises.

The initiative would also create an economic development fund, using a portion ofthe interest from the coal tax trust.
After determining how much interest to allocate to the economic development fund the legislature may spend money
from the fund to support economic development in the state.

FISCAL NOTE
THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN MONTANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FROM THE COALTAXTRUST WOULD
INCREASE EACH YEAR TO AN ESTIMATED TOTAL OF $134.6 MILLION BY 1989. PROJECTIONS HAVE NOT
BEEN MADE BEYOND 1989. SUCH INVESTMENT COULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON
THE TRUST.

□ FOR investing part of the coal severance tax permanent trust fund in the Montana economy and creating a
Montana economic development fund.

□ AGAINST investing part ofthe coal severance tax permanent trust fund in the Montana economy and creating
a Montana economic development fund.

NOTES:

-25-

U. S. SENATE

LARRY WILLIAMS Republican

Kalispell, Montana

Age: 40, born Miles City, Montana; attended schools in Billings;

B.Sc, Univ. of Oregon;

investment advisor & publisher;

wife's name Carla; four children;

co-sponsor tax indexing initiative, 1978, Republican candidate for

U.S. Senate, 1978, co-sponsor Milk Price Initiative, 1982;

Issue most important: "Jobs, reduce foreign aid, less taxes, honest

eovernment that cares."

JOHN MELCHER Democrat

Fort Washington, Md. & Forsyth, Montana

Age: 57, born Sioux City, la.; attended schools in So. Dak., la.,

Minn; D.V.M., Univ. of la.;

veterinarian;

wife's name Ruth, five children;

came to Montana in 1950;

served as Alderman & Mayor of Forsyth, State Rep. 1960-1962 &

1968-1969, State Senate 1962-1966; U.S. House of Rep. 1969-1976,

U.S. Senate 1976-present.

Issue most important: "Lower interest rates, economic recovery, jobs,

agriculture and small business."

LARRY DODGE Libertarian

Helmville, Montana

Age: 39; born Oakland, Calif., attended Bay Area schools, Univ. of
Montana; Ph.D, Brown Univ.;
ow ner/photographer of picture-postcard business;
single, three children by prior marriage;

came to Montana, 1961(-1964); returned to Montana 1967, returned
to Montana 1971;

chair, for Upper Blackfoot Preservation Assn., member Environmen-
tal Info. Center, Northern Tier Info. Committee.
Issue most important: "Imminent economic catastrophe caused by
years of special interest politics."

-26-

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
NO. 1 (WESTERN)

PAT WILLIAMS Democrat

Manassas, Va.

Age: 44, born Helena, Montana; attended schools in Butte, Missoula,

Missouri; B.Sc, Univ. of Denver;

wife's name Carol, three children;

public employee, teacher;

served in Montana House of Rep., 1967-1970; U.S. Congressman

1978-present; member. Reapportionment Commission, Montana

Employment & Training Council.

"The single most important issue right now is jobs."

DON DOIG

Libertarian

Bozeman, Montana

Age: 32, born Bozeman, Montana; attended local schools, B.Sc,
Montana State Univ., grad. work, Miami, Montana St. Univ.;
writer and researcher;
single;

Chair., Montana Libertarian Party; member. Libertarian Free Trade
Committee; Montana 'Clark for President' coordinator;
Issue most important: "Cutting back the size and power of the gov-
ernment."

BOB DAVIES Republican

Bozeman, Montana

Age: 46, born Pittsburgh, Pa.; attended local schools, B.Sc, W. Va.

Univ.;

property management administrator;

wife's name Kathy, two children;

came to Montana in 1966;

active in Cascade Co. Republican Party;

Issue most important: "Solving the economic problems that plague all

Montanans."

-27-

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
NO. 2 (EASTERN)

WESTLEY E DEITCHLER Libertarian

Forsyth, Montana

Age: 40, born Forsyth, Montana; attended local schools; B.Sc,
Montana State Univ.;

construction worker;

wife's name Karen, four children;

member. Libertarian National Committee, Council for a Competitive
Economy;

Issue most important: "The use of force to achieve social and political
goals."

RON MARLENEE Republican

Scobey, Montana

Age: 47, born Scobey, Montana; attended local schools, Univ. of
Montana, Montana State Univ.;
farmer — rancher; , •

wife's name Cynthia; three children;
U.S. Congressman, 1976-present;

Daniels Co. Republican Congressional Committeeman, active in Re-
publican State Central Committee;

Issue most important: "Lowering interest rates - jobs - balanced
budget have my full attention."

HOWARD E LYMAN Democrat

Great Falls, Montana

Age: 43, born Great Falls, Montana; attended local schools, B.Sc,

Montana State Univ.;

rancher;

wife's name Willow Jeane, six children;

active in Melcher, Baucus and Schwinden campaigns. Democratic

Central Committee, Cascade Co.

Issue most important: "Jobs."

-28-

CLERK OF
SUPREME COURT

ETHEL M. HARRISON

Republican

Helena, Montana

Age: 62, born Alliance, Oh., attended local schools; B.A., Cleveland
Institute of Art;
executive secretary;
widowed, two children;

served as Clerk of District Court and Deputy Clerk and Recorder,
Lake County; precinct committeewoman. Lake County;
active in Lake County Republican Central Committee, serving as
secretary and in Lake County Republican Women's Club;
Issue most important: "Modernizing the office for better, more per-
sonal service for you."

RICHARD T. CONBOY Democrat

East Helena, Montana

Age: 51, born Scobey, Montana, attended local schools, B.A., Univ.
of Montana;

deputy Supreme Court Clerk;
single;

Issue most important: "Which candidate has the experience and train-
ing to serve as Clerk."

LINDA DIANE HOFFMAN

Libertarian

Billings, Montana

Age: 34, born Billings, Montana; attended local schools including

Eastern Montana College;

photography shop employee;

single;

returned to Montana 1980;

active in Montana Libertarian Party;

Issue most important: "Insure responsive management by making the

Clerk court-appointed, not elected."

-29-

SUPREME COURT

POSITION 1

GENE B. DALY Nonpartisan

Helena, Montana

Age: 64, born Great Falls, Montana; attended local schools, J.D., Univ. of

Montana;

attorney & justice;

wife's name Ruth, two children;

Cascade Co. Attorney; Great Falls City Attorney; President, Cascade Co.
Democrats; President, Montana Young Democrats;

Issue most important: "To maintain the integrity and strength of the Su-
preme Court."

L. C. GULBRANDSON Nonpartisan

Glendive, Montana

Age: 59, born Vida, (McCone County) Montana; attended schools in Min-
nesota, B.Sc. (Law), L.Lb., Univ. of Minnesota;
attorney and judge;
wife's name Wilma, one child;
returned to Montana 1952;

Issue most important: "Ending multiple appeals, and stopping release of
criminals on technicalities."

POSITION 2

WALLACE NICHOLS CLARK Nonpartisan

Candidate did not submit biographical statement or picture.

JOHN C. SHEEHY Nonpartisan

Helena, Montana

Age: 64, born Butte, Montana; attended local schools, L.Lb., Univ. of

Montana;

attorney and justice;

wife's name Rita Ann, eleven children;

State Representative, Yellowstone Co., State Senator, Yellowstone Co.;

Issue most important: "Hard work and legal know-how for equal justice."

Additional copies of the Voter Information Pamphlet
may be obtained upon request from your county election
administrator or the Secretary of State.

•e«

W >^.

^ cn

tf P

■€«

2. o

h-*

^ o

o o

o "C
75 s;-

"^ S

— "^

5?5

of th
f 9.4

D-

<^ *-■

ir»-

o s:

o —•

■€«

>l^

•o ?

? ^

!-'•

o
o

?§

»= 1

S" *^

O K

►-J

irr-

•a

;^3

o n-

cj-

cn C

(TO

^ o

» 3 » g

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 pamphlet"

See other formats