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

Full text of "Voter information pamphlet"

MONTANA 
STATE 




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



324.786 
S2v 

1984 



1984 



nkkt 



n.r 



V-r 



^tmbt 



ma 




ihtroduction 



On November 6, you will have the opportunity to vote on five state ballot issues along with the federal, 
state and local offices which will appear on your general election ballot. This pamphlet is being sent to you 
and all other registered voters of Montana, as required by law. It is printed to assist you in making 
informed decisions on these very important ballot questions. 

Inside you will find a new look. The first section has been put together in a more easily read and concise 
manner. This section contains just the basic information on each issue — including: the official ballot 
titles and explanatory statements for each issue as prepared by the Legislature and Attorney General; 
"How the issue will appear on the Ballot"; and the arguments "for" and "against" each issue as prepared 
by duly appointed committees of proponents and opponents. Then, the complete text of each measure is 
printed separately toward the end of the pamphlet. 

As Secretary of State of the State of Montana, I certify that the text of each proposed issue, ballot title, 
explanatory statement, statement for and against, and the rebuttal statement which appears in this 
pamphlet is a true and correct copy of the original document filed in my office. 



STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION 

0CT2 91984' 

MONTANA STATE USRARY 

1515 E. 6th AVE. 
HELENA, MONTANA 5W20 





Jim Waltermire 
Secretary of State 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 

No. 13 

No. 14 

CONSTITUTIONAL INITL\TIVE 

No. 23 

INITIATIVES 

No. 96 

No. 97 



Arguments 

2,3 
4,5 



6,7 



8,9 
10, 11 



Text 

12 
12 



12, 13 



13 
13-16 




Montana Stale bb-an. 



3 0864 1004 3868 1 



CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 13 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF 
MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII, SECTION 11, 
OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW THE 
MONTANA SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE A JUSTICE OR 
JUDGE FOR VIOLATION OF CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS 
ADOPTED BY THE COURT 



Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend 
the Momana Constitution to allow the Montana Supreme Court to cen- 
sure, suspend, or remove any judge for violating the rules of judicial 
ethics adopted by the Supreme Court. Currently the Supreme Court may 
discipline judges for willful misconduct in office or for willful and per- 
sistent failure to perform judicial duties. This proposal would authorize 
an additional ground for the disciplining of judges. 



Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 



13 



Montana's Judges are bound by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. 
These ethical standards specify what type of personal conduct is 
acceptable in conducting judicial affairs. For example, a Judge 
must promptly decide pending cases (Canon 7), refrain from 
deciding cases involving relatives (Canon 13) and avoid personal 
investments in enterprises which may be in\olved in litigation 
before him (Canon 26). This code of judicial conduct is designed 
to ensure fairness and justice for all the people who use 
Montana's courts. The Canons of Judicial Ethics specifically 
recognize that the people have a right to expect Montana's judges 
to abide by the ethical standards set forth in the Canons. 

Montana's Judicial Canons have been in effect since 1963. 
However, there has been little, if any, enforcement of the canons. 
One reason the canons have not been enforced is because there 
has been no public entity with the power to investigate alleged 
judicial misconduct. 

The 1972 Constitution appeared to solve this problem by 
creating a Judicial Standards Commission (Article VII, Section 
1 1 ). The Commission was empowered to investigate alleged judi- 
cial misconduct and recommended that the Supreme Court disci- 
pline the offending judge. In 1982, the Montana Supreme Court 
ruled that the Montana Constitution did not give the Judicial 
Standards Commission the power to investigate alleged viola- 
tions of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. 

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 13 gives the Judicial 
Standards Commission the power to investigate alleged viola- 
tions of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Commission received 
eighteen (18) complaints about the conduct of various Montana 
judges in 1981 and 1982. Most of the complaints involved alleged 
violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Proposed Constitu- 
tional Amendment 13 will allow the Commission to fully investi- 
gate alleged ethical violations and, where necessary, recommend 
that an offending judge be disciplined. 

The public does have a right to expect that its judges abide by 
the code of conduct set forth in the Canons of Judicial Ethics. 
The public also has a right to expect that alleged unethical con- 
duct will be fully investigated and disciplinary action imposed by 
the Supreme Court when necessary. Proposed Constitutional 
Amendment 13 will ensure, for the first time, that the Canons of 
Judicial Ethics are enforceable. 



Rebuttal of Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 13 

The opponents to Proposed Constitutional Amendment 13 
misrepresent both the effect and the purpose of the amendment. 

Present procedures are not adequate to enforce the Canons of 
Judicial Ethics. The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that the 
Montana Constitution did not give the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission the authority to investigate ethical misconduct by 
Judges. Thus, if a citizen complains that a Judge has violated the 
Canons of Judicial Ethics, the Judicial Standards Commission 
presently has no authority to investigate the allegation and, if 
necessary, recommend appropriate disciplinary action. 

The opponents argue that impeachment is an adequate means 
of dealing with judicial misconduct. The opponents argument is 
without merit. 

Impeachment will only occur where a public official is guihy 
of criminal activity or gross abuse of power The Canons of 
Judicial Ethics establish a code of conduct which, if followed, 
will assure the public of fairness, honesty and integrity in the 
judicial process. A judge who violates the Canons is not guilty of 
a crime nor would the violation, in most instances, constitute a 
gross abuse of power. In short, most ethical violations will not 
result in impeachment. 

This does not mean, however, that judicial ethics violations 
should go unchallenged. Ethical misconduct which affects the 
fairness, honesty or integrity of the judicial process should be 
dealt with through censure or suspension from office. Proposed 
Constitutional Amendment 13 allows the Judicial Standards 
Commission and the Supreme Court to impose appropriate dis- 
ciplinary action when the Canons of Judicial Ethics are violated. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Fred Van Valkenburg, 
Missoula; Representative Gary Spaeth, Silesia; and Steve 
Brown, Helena. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 13 



I I FOR amending the Montana Constitution to allow the Montana Supreme Court to 

— discipline judges for violating rules of judicial ethics adopted by the court. 

I I AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution to allow the Montana Supreme 

— Court to discipline judges for violating rules of judicial ethics adopted by the court. 



NOTE: The ballot title was written by the Legislature and the explanatory statement by the Attorney General 
as required by state law. The complete text of Constitutional Amendment No. 13 appears on page 12. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 13 

Constitutional Amendment 13 proposed to make an Amend- 
ment in the Judicial Article of The Montana Constitution by 
adding as an additional ground for removal of a judge the reason 
that said judge violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by 
the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. The reasons for 
opposing said Amendment are: 

1. The Constitution is a broad principled document which 
should not include specific acts. The Canons of Judicial Ethics 
adopted by the Supreme Court is formulated by the American 
Bar Association and presently contains 36 separate canons. 
Adoption by reference of each of the canons (which are subject 
to change) should not be included in the Constitution. 

2. The present Constitutional provision for disciplining judges 
is adequate and all matters are left in hands of the Judicial Stand- 
ards Commission. Montana's Judiciary simply have not pro- 
vided any reason to change the present workable system. 

3. The present reason for disciplining judges, which includes 
removal from office, is based upon cause for willful misconduct 
in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, or 
habitual intemperance. The term willful misconduct in office 
has been judicially interpreted to mean "any act involving moral 
turpitude, or any act which is contrary to justice, honesty, prin- 
ciple or good morals, if performed by virtue of office or by 
authority of office." The Canons of Judicial Ethics provide no 
greater cause for misconduct in office. In fact, such canons as 
adopted by the American Bar Association are to serve only as a 
"proper guide and reminder for judges and is indirectly what the 
people have a right to expect from them." One is, in fact, simply 
duplicative of the present habitual intemperate ground for re- 
moval in the Constitution because Canon 5 provides a Judge 
should be temperate." 

4. A Canon governs impositions of sentences and provides 
that when imposing a sentence a Judge should endeaver to con- 
form to a reasonable standard of punishment and should not 
seek popularity or publicity either by exceptional severity or un- 
due leniency. Such standard, if it is one, can lead to discipline of 
a judge over criminal sentences by the Judicial Commission. 
That standard is unworkable. Rather, the Judge's decisions in 
sentencing should be governed by sentence review process and by 
the electoral process, which in the final analysis provides safe- 
guard to the public of a unpopular Judge. 



5. The Constitutional Convention, and the people approving 
the 1972 Constitution, just recently reflected upon and passed 
upon Judicial Standards for Judges. For judicial misconduct 
outside of the office the Constitution in Article V, Sec. 13, re- 
served to the legislature, either through impeachment or through 
further legislative action, the removal of public officers, includ- 
ing judicial offices. Thus, another method is provided for law 
for removal of incompetent judges for any cause. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 13 

The committee has chosen to not write a rebuttal statement. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Pete Story, Emigrant; 
Representative Bob Pavlovich, Butte; and Representative Fritz 
Daily, Butte. 




CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 14 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE 



OmCIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA 
AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 14, OF THE MONTANA 
CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DIS- 
TRICTS IN MONTANA BE REDISTRICTED WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER 
THE OFFICIAL FINAL DECENNIAL CENSUS FIGURES ARE AVAIL- 
ABLE. 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the 
Montana Constitution to require that 90 days after the final census figures are 
available, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission must com- 
plete its final plan for redistricting congressional districts. Currently the Com- 
mission's redistricting plan must be submitted to the Legislature for comment at 
the first regular session after its appointment or after the census figures are 
available before the final plan may become law. This proposal would eliminate 
the need for legislative comment on the congressional redistricting plan, but 
would retain the requirement for the legislative redistricting plan. 



Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 14 

The 1972 Montana Constitution provides for annual sessions 
of its Legislature. In 1974 a referendum was passed by Montana 
voters which changed the sessions of the Legislature to biennial 
sessions, which had the inadvertent effect of delaying Montana's 
reapportionment schedule by one year. Only Montana and 
Maine did not complete their congressional redistricting for the 
1980 census until 1983. 

The 1980 Montana Districting and Apportionment Commis- 
sion recommended specific legislation to speed up the congres- 
sional redistricting process so that this procedure will be 
completed within 90 days after the official final census figures 
are available. The 1983 Montana Legislature responded to the 
Commission's recommendation by passing two bills, by over- 
whelming margins, necessary to implement the new congres- 
sional redistricting schedule. The Legislature agreed with the 
Commission's concern that Montana's election of its two United 
States Representatives could be challenged in court if the time 
schedule for redistricting the congressional districts was not 
changed. This proposed change will not in any way effect the 
time schedule or procedure used to redistrict the Montana State 
Senate and the House of Representatives. 

A series of federal court decisions dating back to 1964 have 
held that states must attempt to achieve "precise mathematical 
equality" justifying "each variance no matter how small" in con- 
gressional districts. Between the 1970 and 1980 federal census, 
Montana's western congressional district experienced an increase 
in population and the eastern district a decline in population. 
The official 1980 census data for Montana was ready for use in 
early 1981, yet congressional redistricting was not completed 
until 1983 in Montana due to the existing problem in the state 
law. Legal scholars agree that Montana was in violation of fed- 
eral court decisions in the 1982 congressional elections. As 
Montana has only two congressional districts it is a relatively 
simple process to redistrict the state into congressional districts. 
Constitutional amendment ffl4 will correct the existing problem 
by requiring the Commission to complete congressional redis- 
tricting within 90 days of the availability of the final official 
decennial census data. By approving this amendment, Montana 
will become one of the first states to complete the required con- 
gressional redistricting instead of being one of the last. 



Rebuttal of Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 14 

The opposition argument that the legislature now has thirty 
(30) days to review and recommend changes in both legislative 
and congressional district boundaries proposed by the Commis- 
sion is correct but incomplete. The legislature does have review 
authority, but the Commission is under no obligation to accept 
any recommendations resulting from the legislative review under 
the current law. The proposed change will still allow for legisla- 
tive review of Commission proposed legislative boundaries. 
There is no possibility of a special legislative session being re- 
quired due to this proposed change in the law. 

The concern expressed in the opposition argument regarding 
the ninety (90) day deadline for drawing the congressioni bound- 
ary is purely speculative and is without merit. The bipartison 
Commissiori, that has experience with the process, unanimously 
recommend the ninety (90) day deadline be placed in the law to 
avoid any legal challenges. The Commission could hold hearings 
in 10 to 15 locations in Montana in one week. 

The Commission has assured the legislature that drawing one 
boundary line to create two congressional Districts in Montana 
is a simple matter and can be accomplished to meet the constitu- 
tional requirement of the "one man, one vote" rule within the 
time limit stated in this proposed law. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Larry Tveit, Fairview, 
Representative Ray Peck, Havre; and Louise Gait, Helena. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 14 



D 



FOR requiring the congressional redistricting plan to be finalized within 90 days after 
official final census data are available and eliminating provisions for legislative com- 
ment. 



D 



AGAINST requiring the congressional redistricting plan to be finalized within 90 days 
after official final census data are available and eliminating provisions for legislative 
comment. 



NOTE: The ballot title was written by the Legislature and the explanatory statement by the Attorney General 
as required by state law. The complete text of Constitutional Amendment No. 14 appears on page 12. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 



14 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 



14 



The legislature currently has 30 days in which to review and 
recommend changes in both legislative and congressional district 
boundaries proposed by the Reapportionment Commission. If 
this resolution is adopted, legislative review of the Commission's 
proposed changes in congressional district boundaries may be 
eliminated or could require costly special legislative sessions. In 
addition, removal of legislative review with respect to congres- 
sional districts results in unequal treatment of legislators and 
congressmen for no apparent reason. 

The strict 90-day deadline established in the resolution for the 
submission of the final congressional reapportionment plan may 
not be sufficient time to allow for full consideration of all 
boundary options available to the Commission. More impor- 
tantly, the limited time-frame may prevent the commission from 
holding geographically dispersed hearings to solicit public opi- 
nion. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Mahan v. Ho- 
well . 410 U.S. 315 (1973) that "strict proportionality" is required 
in the formation of congressional districts in order to meet the 
constitutional requirements of "one man, one vote." Passage of 
this resolution containing the 90-day deadline for the formation 
of congressional district boundaries may not allow the Reappor- 
tionment Commission sufficient time to develop a plan which 
meets the "strict proportionality" standard established by the 
U.S. Supreme Court and the "one man, one vote," requirements 
of the Montana and the United States Constitutions. 



The proponents of Constitutional Amendment #14 argue that 
this resolution is necessary to speed-up the Congressional Redis- 
tricting process and achieve the mathematical equality required 
by federal court decisions. However, the proponents have failed 
to document (1) the need or reason for treating Congressmen 
different than legislators with respect to legislative review of pro- 
posed district boundaries, or (2) whether sufficient public parti- 
cipation will be provided for prior to the 90 day deadline. 

It is precisely because this resolution allows for possible imple- 
mentation of a Congressional Reapportionment Plan without 
legislative review and leaves open the possibility of inadequate 
public participation that the resolution, as written, should be 
defeated. 



These Arguments Prepared by; Senator Mike Halligan, Mis- 
soula; Representative Bernie Swift, Hamilton; and Representa- 
tive Bob Thoft, Stevensville. 




CONSTITUTIONAL 
INITIATIVE NO. 23 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 
AND 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

THIS INITIATIVE WOULD AMEND THE MONTANA CONSTITU- 
TION TO DIRECT THE 1985 LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT A RESO- 
LUTION REQUESTING CONGRESS TO CALL A CONSTITU- 
TIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING A 
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT THE INITIATIVE WOULD 
ALSO REQUIRE THAT IF THE RESOLUTION IS NOT ADOPTED 
WITHIN NINETY LEGISLATIVE DAYS, THE LEGISLATURE 
SHALL REMAIN IN SESSION WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO 
ITS MEMBERS, AND WITH NO RECESS IN EXCESS OF THREE 
CALENDAR DAYS, UNTIL THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED. 
THE INITIATIVE WOULD BECOME VOID IF THE CONVENTION 
IS NOT LIMITED TO THE SUBJECT OF A BALANCED BUDGET 
OR IF CONGRESS ITSELF PROPOSES A SIMILAR AMEND- 
MENT 



Argument For 
Constitutional Initiative No. 



23 



By the time you finish reading this, the national debt will 
increase by $1,020,000. 

The federal government is spending almost $200 billion a year 
more than it takes in . . . and that's bad business. Every dollar 
the federal government borrows drives up interest rates, hurts 
Montanans who need to buy a home, farm or car, and takes 
away jobs from Montanans. And it makes everything you buy 
cost more. 

For over 15 years we've tried to balance the budget - and 
failed. 

In that time we've suffered three recessions, runaway infla- 
tion, record-breaking high interest rates, and severe unemploy- 
ment. 

Deficit spending is the biggest threat to your economic secu- 
rity and future generations of Montanans. 

And, it's getting worse. During the 1960's, deficits averaged $6 
billion per year. During the '70's, deficits averaged $35 billion per 
year. Last year, the deficit was $208 billion! 

The interest on the federal debt is $150 billion per year - the 
third largest item in the federal budget. 

Just like any family or business, the American government 
can't go on forever spending beyond its means. We're lucky in 
Montana. Our state constitution requires a balanced budget. 
Because of this requirement, the governor and the state legisla- 
ture are limited in the amount they can spend. Almost every 
other state in the country has a balanced budget requirement. 
These constitutional limits on spending have worked well. 

This initiative asks the Montana legislature to send a balanced 
federal budget resolution to Congress. The resolution asks Con- 
gress to pass a balanced federal budget amendment, or if Con- 
gress fails to pass the amendment, call a limited constitutional 
convention for the sole purpose of proposing a balanced budget 
amendment. The amendment would be phased in and have ex- 
ceptions for emergencies. It would become law only after it is 
ratified by 38 of the 50 states. 

If the legislature doesn't adopt the resolution by the end of its 
regular session, the legislators must stay in session and serve 
without pay to discuss and deliberate on the balanced budget 
amendment resolution. No other issues could be discussed at this 
time. They would go out of session when the balanced budget 
resolution is approved. 

Thirty-two states have already passed similar resolutions. Just 
two more states are needed to force proposal of the balanced 
federal budget amendment. Montana has a chance to play an 
historic role in forcing government to be fiscally responsible. 



If the balanced federal budget amendment passes, you will 
benefit from a healthier economy, less unemployment and more 
jobs. 

A balanced budget amendment would permanently protect us 
from irresponsible and wasteful spending by Congress. 

Some of the organizations that have endorsed the initiative 
include the Montana Association of Realtors, Montana Stock- 
growers Association, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, the 
Montana Chamber of Commerce, and many others. 

The federal government has ignored taxpayers for too long. A 
vote for the balanced federal budget initiative will force govern- 
ment to listen to us. 

Rebuttal of the Argument Against 
Constitutional Initiative No. 23 

This initiative is the best way for the people to voice their 
opinion on the balanced federal budget constitutional amend- 
ment. The people have the right to act when government has 
ignored their wishes. 

Former U.S. Senator Sam Ervin, a Constitutional scholar, 
says that the scare tactic of an open convention is "just a non- 
existent Constitutional ghost conjured up by people who are 
opposed to balancing the budget." 

Former U.S. Attorney General Griffin B. Bell thinks "the 
Convention can be limited ... the fact is that the majority of 
the (legal) scholars in America share my view." The American 
Bar Association says that Congress has the power to limit a 
Constitutional Convention to the Balanced Budget Amendment 
topic only The 32 state resolutions are limited to this one sub- 
ject. 

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously ap- 
proved legislation which would limit the Convention to this one 
topic. 

Even if other amendments could be proposed, they would 
mean nothing. A constitutional amendment must be approved 
by three-quarters of the states before becoming law. Does any- 
one seriously suggest that a proposal that goes against the funda- 
mental beliefs of Americans will gain the approval of 38 states? 
Obvisouly not! 

The opponents admit that the budget must be brought under 
control, but offer no solution. 

Action by the states is the only way of making Congress fis- 
cally responsible. Special interests have blocked passage of the 
necessary balanced federal budget resolution in the state legisla- 
ture. Thus, the initiative process-once again-is the people's only 
recourse. 

These Arguments Prepared by: Larry Williams, Kalispell; 
Cliff Christian, Helena; and Congressman Ron Marlenee, Sco- 

bey. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 23 



D 



FOR amending the Montana Constitution to direct the Legislature to request that 
Congress call a constitutional convention to propose a balanced federal budget 
amendment. 



I — I AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution to direct the Legislature to request 
— that Congress call a constitutional convention to propose a balanced federal budget 
amendment. 



NOTE: The ballot title and explanatory statement was written by the Attorney General as required by state 
law. The complete text of Constitutional Initiative No. 23 appears on pages 12 and 13. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Initiative No. 23 

This Constitutional Initiative No. 23 should be defeated be- 
cause it attempts to change our State Constitution in a manner 
dangerous to representative government. It would amend our 
State Constitution, forcing the legislature in a continuing resolu- 
tion to deliver an ultimatum to Congress and it proposes ridicu- 
lous and unworkable punishment of legislators who oppose it. In 
attempting to amend the National Constitution it violates our 
Montana Constitutions carefully balanced allocation of powers. 

Vote "no" to calling a federal constitution convention! There 
are now some 60 proposals from single-issue groups to amend 
the federal constitution on such issues as gun control, abortion, 
school prayer, and on and on. Calling a constitutional conven- 
tion to require a balanced budget could open the constitution to 
these issues as well as state's rights to set their own taxes 
(Montana's coal tax for example, and other issues). Many legal 
scholars believe there is no way to limit such a convention once it 
is convened. There has not been a national constitutional con- 
vention since the original. It is neither necessary nor desirable to 
have one now. 

The "balanced budget" approach of this initiative suggests a 
noble purpose but bypassing the legislative process is a shocking 
change in American law-making. The legislature, after due de- 
liberation, has rejected this proposal, not because of the bal- 
anced budget idea, but because it carries an alternative 
ultimatum calling for a constitutional convention. 

Congress may be the problem; the president may be the prob- 
lem, the constitution is not the problem. It is irresponsible to 
have hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits; it is even more 
irresponsible to blame and tamper with the constitution. You 
balance budgets by cutting spending, increasing ta.xes or both, 
not by writing a constitutional amendment. We need prudent 
fiscal policy in 1984. The Amendment proposal is a way of 
sweeping the problem under the carpet for a minimum of seven 
years while some of its advocates continue to avoid tough taxing 
and spending decisions. 

We appeal to all thinking voters to consider the effects of this 
initiative and to defeat it. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Initiative 23 

I nitiative 23 is iiof a request to Congress to balance the budget . 

It is not a balanced budget initiative. 

It is a good looking apple pie-full of worms. 

Worm 1: If 34 states petition Congress to call a Constitutional 
Convention, Congress must call one. This convention would not 
be advisory and cannot be limited to one subject. Every radical 
group in the country would fight to get its agenda into the New 
U.S. Constitution. 

Worm 2: To do this. Initiative 23 would force the Montana 
Legislature into special session at a cost of $82,000 a week. 

Make the politicians tell the truth; read the small print. 

Worm 3: Calling a constitutional convention would only give 
the illusion of doing something to balance the budget. It would 
decrease, not increase pressure to get rid of deficits. 

President Ford's Budget Director Roy Ash — who strongly op- 
poses the huge deficits-says about this approach: "(T)he illusion 
of action will relieve pressure to actually do the job thai has to be 
done now. Spending and taxing can go their merry unabated 
way, and the deficit will become totally out of control. All the 
while politicians can claim they have taken decisive action. We 
don't need political illusions—we need action." 

With illusory "budget cuts" like transferring highway con- 
struction to the States, Montana taxes would increase. "Regula- 
tory spending"-could put the budget into so-called "balance" 
by requring businesses and individuals to directly provide retire- 
ment and health care costs now funded by Social Security 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Bill Norman, Mis- 
soula; Willa Dale Evans, Roundup; Senator Matt Himsl, Kalis- 
pell; Terry Murphy, Great Falls; and Bob Watt, Missoula. 




INITIATIVE 
NO. 96 



OFnCIAL BALLOT TITLE 
AND 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

THIS INITIATIVE WOULD ABOLISH THE STATE BOARD OF 
MILK CONTROL AND ELIMINATE STATE CONTROL OF THE 
PRICE OF MILK. THE INITIATIVE WOULD ALSO DO AWAY 
WITH CERTAIN LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER REG- 
ULATIONS ON THE SALE OF MILK. 



A LAW PROPOSED 
BY INITIATIVE PETITION 



Argument For 
Initiative No. 96 



Montana voters will have a chance this November to abolish 
the Milk Control Board and the price controls on milk set by the 
Board. The result will be lower milk prices for consumers. 

Under current Montana law, it is illegal to sell milk for less 
than the minimum price. It is illegal to put milk on sale or sell 
cheaper brands. Montana has some of the highest milk prices in 
the country, despite the fact that Montana is a dairy state. In 
August, the minimum price, set by the Board of Milk Control, 
was $2.63 for a gallon of whole milk. Neighboring states had 
milk available for normal, non-sale prices of between $1.85 and 
$2.45, and even lower sale prices. Inexpensive store brand milk, 
and milk on sale, will be available in most supermarkets under 
price decontrol. 

These unfair regulations hurt consumers, especially low in- 
come consumers such as senior citizens and familes with 
children. Artificially high milk prices mean that shoppers find 
that their money buys less in the supermarket. And families have 
less nutritious meals at home, because consumers buy less fresh 
milk. Many low income families must buy powdered milk (which 
is shipped in from out of state), because they can't afford fresh 
milk. 

Milk price controls were a New Deal era program enacted 
during the Great Depression. They were supposed to be tem- 
porary But, when conditions returned to normal during the 
1940s, they were not ended. Instead, they became permanent. 
While most states have been moving away from price controls, 
Montana remains one of the few states with controls at all levels - 
- retail, wholesale and producer levels. 

Milk prices fell in other states following decontrol, and remain 
cheaper than in Montana. 

The Milk Control Board does not set maximum prices, so 
there is no reason to expect prices to rise following decontrol. 
Even though it is legal to sell milk for more than the minimum 
price, few stores take that opportunity, even in small towns. 
That's because the minimum price is set far above the market 
supply and demand level. 

Fresh milk will continue to be available throughout Montana, 
just like eggs and bread and fruit and vegetables, none of which 
have price controls. The Department of Livestock maintains 
quality controls on milk, and Initiative 96 will not affect or alter 
health or freshness standards. 

The politically powerful dairy lobby has succeeded for dec- 
ades in protecting its special interest privileges. Unlike other 
businesses, the dairy industry is protected from price competi- 
tion, and is guaranteed high prices. And yet price decontrol will 



not be ruinous for the industry. No industry can remain healthy 
and efficient for long if it is protected from competition. 
Further, lower retail prices will increase consumption of fresh 
milk, and allow Montana producers to sell more milk. The dairy 
industry can survive price competition. 

Please help us get rid of these anti-competitive price controls. 
Vote for 1-96, the Milk Price Decontrol Initiative. Thank you. 



Rebuttal of Argument Against 
Initiative No. 96 

The arguments of opponents of milk price decontrol are fac- 
tually incorrect and self-contradictory. First, they say milk prices 
increased in slates that decontrolled. This is incorrect. The states 
that decontrolled include Alabama, California, Florida, Geor- 
gia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ore- 
gon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, 
Virginia, and Wyoming. Prices are lower because of decontrol- 
and are lower than prices in Montana. You can confirm this by 
talking with friends and relatives in these states. 

Then, they say decontrol will drive dairymen out of business. 
How can higher prices drive dairymen out of business? Their 
second argument contradicts their first argument. The fact is 
decontrol will lower prices to consumers. With lower prices, con- 
sumers will buy more milk. Therefore, there will be more busi- 
ness, not less, for dairymen. 

Opponents of decontrol say decontrol of other industries 
raised prices. This is wrong. Long-distance telephone rates are 
lower. Airline fares are lower. Trucking rates are lower Gasoline 
prices are low er. Before decontrol , gasoline was $ 1 . 30 per gallon . 
Today, even with higher gasoline taxes, it's down to $1.10 per 
gallon. 

It's a shame some in the dairy industry are afraid of decontrol. 
Why don't they think they can meet competition like other busi- 
nesses? Do they think they are that inefficient? Or, after 50 years 
of protection from price competition, have they simply forgot- 
ten what it's like to compete? 

Again, we urge you to vote YES on Milk Price Decontrol, 
Initiative 96. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Don Doig, Bozeman; Clifford 
Thies, Great Falls; and Jim McLean, Anaconda. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
INITIATIVE NO. 96 



I — I FOR abolishing the State Board of Milk Control and eliminating state regulation of 
milk prices. 

I — I AGAINST abolishing the State Board of Milk Control and eliminating the state 
regulation of milk prices. 



NOTE: The ballot title and explanatory statement was written by the Attorney General as required by state 
law. The complete text of Initiative No. 96 appears on page 13. 



Argument Against 
Initiative No. 96 

Repeal of the Milk Control Law will not guarantee lower milk 
prices. In fact, experience in other states proves that prices are 
generally higher after decontrol. Decontrol will also assure con- 
trol of the milk industry by large out-of-state interests. 

Every Montanan is already paying more for the decontrol of 
the telephone company, railroads, airlines, banks, and other in- 
dustries by higher prices and less service. 

The Governor and his staff are working to build Montana and 
its small industries through the Build Montana program. Repeal 
of the Milk Control Law will eliminate at least four hundred jobs 
with a $5 milHon dollar payroll in the dairy industry alone , and 
of course many allied service jobs; and product loss will be expe- 
rienced. Also in jeopardy with decontrol would be a $300 million 
investment by producers who produce a raw product valued at 
$50 million at the farm. 

With only 1.5 people per square mile in rural areas, under milk 
control they have received adequate service and high quality 
wholesome milk at the same price as provided in urban areas. 

Many years ago, the Montana Legislature, after extensive in- 
vestigation, found that the milk industry affected the public in- 
terest, health and welfare, and it therefore must be regulated in 
order to ensure to the consumers of Montana an adequate supply 
of wholesome milk at a reasonable price. The Legislature has 
reaffirmed this finding in almost all succeeding sessions. 

The Board of Milk Control is composed of five consumer 
members with absolutely no ties or connections to the dairy in- 
dustry The Board and the Legislature found that the objectives 
of the law were best accomplished by pricing milk at all levels by 
economic formula, adopted and administered by this consumer 
Board. Milk pricing is a small part of the total function of this 
Board. It also audits all payments to dairy farmers to assure 
proper payment for the milk delivered to the processor. It en- 
forces fair trade rules, monitors quality of the product, holds 
public hearings for the benefit of the public, and regulates 
charges for hauling of milk from farm to plant and from plant to 
plant. All costs of administration of this Board and its staff are 
assessed and collected from the dairy farmers and distributors. 

Ninety-five percent of the milk produced in the United States 
is under federal control. A vote for Initiative 96 is a vote for 
federal control in Montana. 

The dairy farmers and processors of Montana urge you to 
VOTE NO on Initiative 96, to protect a viable industry and the 
consumers of Montana. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Initiative No. 96 

Contrary to statements by the proponents (Jefferson Al- 
liance/Libertarians), Montana does not have the highest milk 
prices in the country, but average to lower prices in many in- 
stances, particularly in rural areas. 

The proponents also stated that Montana is a "dairy state" 
when the fact is that Montana is a very marginal dairy state. For 
example North Dakota produces more milk monthly than 
Montana does annually 

A current survey of prices in Wyoming indicates the prevailing 
price of a '/: gallon of whole milk ranges from $1 .28 in Riverton 
to $1.35 in Cody Montana's current price is $1.32. The propo- 
nents use unsubstantiated figures that may or may not be repre- 
sentative of prevailing prices in any particular area. If it is true, 
as alleged, that milk prices are higher in Montana, why haven't 
the proponents appeared at hearings before the Milk Control 
Board with their evidence to protect the consumers they now are 
so concerned about? 

It is not true conditions returned to normal in the 1940's, and 
that milk price controls were supposed to be temporary. The 
purpose of milk price control was to permanently stabilize the 
milk industry and ensure that wholesome milk is available at a 
reasonable price to everyone. 

The issues are Higher vs. Lower milk prices. Federal vs. State 
control, and domination of the milk industry by out-of-state 
interests. A vote for Initiative 96 is a vote for higher prices . 
federal control, and out-of-state domination. Vote agamst Initia- 
tive 96. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Paul Boylan, Boze- 
man; Harry Mitchell, Great Falls; Kenneth M. Kelly, Helena; 
James Fleming, Kalispell; and Marvelle Cole, Billings. 




INITIATIVE 

NO. 97 



A LAW PROPOSED 
BY INITIATIVE PETITION 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 
AND 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

THIS INITIATIVE WOULD PERMIT THE STATE LICENSING OF 
DENTURISTS TO MAKE, FIT REPAIR AND FURNISH DEN- 
TURES TO THE PUBLIC. IT WOULD SET STANDARDS FOR THE 
ISSUING OF LICENSES TO DENTURISTS AND FOR THE CON- 
DUCT OF THEIR PRACTICE. IT WOULD CREATE A STATE 
BOARD OF DENTURITRY TO ADMINISTER E.XAMIN.ATIONS 
TO APPLICANTS FOR LICENSES, AND TO COLLECT FEES FOR 
ISSUING AND RENEWING LICENSES. THE INITIATIVE 
WOULD EXEMPT LICENSED DENTURISTS FROM THE DEN- 
TAL PRACTICES ACT AND WOULD AMEND SECTIONS 37-4- 
103, 37-14-102 AND 37-14-301, MCA. 



Argument For 
Initiative No. 97 

When Montanans vote for INITIATIVE 97, the Freedom of 
Choice in Denture Services Act, they will end Dentistry's monop- 
oly over the sale of dentures, a product very rarely if ever con- 
structed by dentists! 

INITIATIVE 97 establishes a proven safe, economical al- 
ternative for denture care by permitting the state licensing of 
denturists to make, fit, repair and furnish removable, full and 
partial dentures directly to the public. As a result savings of 50°7o 
or more can be realized. 

INITIATIVE 97 requires denturists to have special education 
and training, then pass a strict, written and practical test before 
receiving a state license. The educational requirements are the 
strongest, most comprehensive for denturists anywhere. The re- 
quired courses have been taken by Montana's denturists at Idaho 
State University-Pocatello through the dental school program 
which is recognized and accredited in all 50 states and Canada. 
Montana's denturists are educationally qualified to work directly 
with the public and recognize abnormalities that should be re- 
ferred for treatment. 

Canada has had denturist legislation for almost 25 years with 
never a single malpractice case filed against a denturist. Four 
western states have denturist legislation; they are Arizona, Col- 
orado, Oregon and Idaho with more states soon to follow. 

INITIATIVE 97 is consumer oriented, requiring an uncondi- 
tional guarantee on all denturists' services and a series of many 
other consumer protection clauses insuring highest quality 

INITIATIVE 97 will establish a Board of Denturitry consist- 
ing of denturists and two lay person watchdogs for the con- 
sumer. In effect, this will end dentistry's control over the sale of 
partials and dentures allowing competition, not a monopoly, to 
determine the cost of health care. 

The Board will operate at NO COST TO TAXPAYERS, sup- 
ported by licensing and renewal fees from licensed denturists. 
This same method of funding a Board has been proven success- 
ful in Idaho. Also, taxpayers will benefit by reduced fees for 
State Medicaid and Workmans Compensation claims for den- 
ture care and by the establishment of new denturist businesses 
which will add to Montana's ta.x base. 

People with dental insurance will also benefit by having their 
out-of-pocket costs cut by 50<^o or more. The door would also be 
opened for insurance companies to lower premiums because 
their payouts for denture care would be reduced significantly. 

Idaho passed a similar measure in 1982. Many Montanans 
now spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year going to 
Idaho and Canada seeking economical denture services. That's 
not fair to Montana's economy, or Montanans, when our friends 
and neighbors are forced to leave home for affordable denture 



services. Whether Montanans can or cannot afford the current 
high cost of denture care is not the question, but being allowed to 
BUY MONTANAN is definitely the answer! 

INITIATIVE 97 will be a step not only toward containing 
skyrocketing health care costs, but actually reducing these costs 
dramatically. 

John Hancock once took an opportunity to endorse 
"FREEDOM OF CHOICE". Montanans should now take the 
opportunity to endorse FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN DEN- 
TURE CARE by voting FOR INITIATIVE 97. 

Rebuttal of Arguments Against 
Initiative No. 97 

MONTANA'S SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, 
A.A.R.R, MONTANA and NATIONAL FARMERS UNIONS, 
A.EL.-CI.O., GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON 
AGING, recognized associations and professionals support INI- 
TIATIVE 97. They are Montanans interested in safely reducing 
the costs of quality health care. 

Leading medical researchers and The Journal of Prosthetic 
Dentistry as recently as August, 1984, report dentures do not 
contribute to oral cancer. Montana's dental community should 
not mislead , but should educate the public on this serious sub- 
ject! By law, Montana dentists cannot guarantee their services. 
With INITIATIVE 97, more consumer health safeguards are 
established to insure the highest quality care. 

Montana Denturists (not taxpayers) will fund Montana's Den- 
turitry Board (SEE FISCAL NOTE). Oregon's licensing 
authorities report INITIATIVE 97's opponents used incorrect 
figures . Oregon's program is funded entirely by denturists licens- 
ing fees. 

INITIATIVE 97 conforms to Montana law requiring the gov- 
ernor to appoint members to all boards (See SECTION 7.) 

Denturists, dentists and dental technicians coexist elsewhere. 
INITIATIVE 97 regulates denturists, not the dental community. 
Montana dental technicians will benefit when more dentists keep 
their laboratory work in Montana to effectively compete with 
denturists. 

Nearly 40,000 Montanans , recognizing skyrocketing costs of 
quality denture care, signed INITIATIVE 97 enabling all Mon- 
tanans to vote "Yes" on this measure. Both major political par- 
ties endorse the initiative process, the ultimate form of self 
government. 

The current .Montana denture delivery system is inadequate, 
forcing Montanans to seek affordable quality denture services in 
Idaho, Canada and elsewhere. A "Yes" vote on 97 will keep 
Montana dollars at home. 

VOTE FOR 97! 



These Arguments Prepared by: Lee Wiser, Livingston; S. 
(Doc) Hocking, Bigfork; and Dorothy Garvin, Kalispell. 



B. 



10 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 

INITIATIVE NO. 97 
nSCAL NOTE 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD OF DENTURISTS WILL HAVE NO NET FIS- 
CAL IMPACT ON THE STATE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED BOARD IS FUNDED BY 
A SERIES OF FEES ON DENTURISTS. 

I I FOR permitting the state licensing of denturists to make, fit, repair and furnish 
dentures to the public. 

I I AGAINST permitting the state licensing of denturists to make, fit, repair and furnish 
dentures to the public. 

NOTE: The ballot title and explanatory statement was written by the Attorney General as required by state 
law. The complete text of Initiative No. 97 appears on pages 13-16. 



Argument Against 
Initiative No. 97 



NO ON INITIATIVE 97 means NO to out of state interests 
controlling Montana. A "NO" vote allows Montanans the right 
to exercise their CHOICE to govern themselves. 

NO ON 97 guarantees the RIGHT to KEEP MONTANANS 
EMPLOYED. Dental Technicians, skilled Montana craftsmen, 
are an essential part of the dental delivery system. They work in 
association with dentists to provide high quality dentures to 
people. Dental Technicians are an important part of the dental 
community and have been for years. The dental community 
needs Dental Technicians as skilled craftsmen. INITIATIVE 97 
THREATENS THEIR JOBS! 

A DENTURE is a replacement for a part of the HUMAN 
BODY; it is not just a piece of plastic fabricated in a laboratory 
The knowledge of a dentist and the skills of the fully trained 
Dental Technician are required to properly prepare a personal- 
ized molded and fitted denture. "Denturitry" is practicing Den- 
tistry illegally INITIATIVE 97 BYPASSES these steps to let 
"denturists" construct an appliance. 

SERIOUS MEDICAL PROBLEMS CAN RESULT FROM 
IMPROPERLY FITTED DENTURES. Dizziness, nausea, 
headaches, TMJ problems, malnutrition, and painful, POTEN- 
TIALLY DANGEROUS CANCER RELATED sores can de- 
velop. DENTURES PREPARED BY A DENTAL TECHNI- 
CIAN UPON A DENTIST'S PRESCRIPTION CONSIDERS 
EACH PERSON UNIQUELY TO AVOID THESE PROB- 
LEMS. 

NO ON 97 SAYS "NO" TO ADDITIONAL TAXES to sup- 
port a DUPLICATE BUREAUCRACY. A "Denturitry" board 
has cost Oregon taxpayers over $100,000 last year alone. This is 
an UNNECESSARY EXPENSE! 

AN AUTONOMOUS ENTITY FOR DENTURISTS IS NOT 
NECESSARY. By avoiding legislative procedure, "denturists" 
keep UNDEMOCRATIC CONTROL of their proposed 
"board," as opposed to the Board of Dentistry, whose members 
are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature. 
In contrast, "DENTURISTS" DICTATE THEIR APPOINT- 
MENTS, thereby maintaining MONOPOLISTIC AND DIC- 
TATORIAL CONTROL over their self styled, OUT OF STATE 
GENERATED STANDARDS. 

The Montana dental community is opposed to the fabrication 
of separate standards within any industry "Denturists" demand 
self-appointed control and specifically demand exclusion from 
the health safeguards found within the Montana Dental Prac- 
tices Act, which guarantees by law that Montana citizens are 
receiving the finest dental care possible. INITIATIVE 97 
SHOULD BE DEFEATED SO A SAFE AND EQUITABLE 



LAW, based on the true needs of the public and the health con- 
cerns of the medical and dental professions, CAN BE PASSED 
TO SAFEGUARD OUR HEALTH. The democratic process 
would provide US with the LEGAL PROTECTION we need to 
use our freedom of CHOICE secure in the knowledge that our 
RIGHT to quality medical and dental care is protected by State 
law. 

VOTE "NO" ON INITIATIVE 97, A VOTE FOR 
MONTANA. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Initiative No. 97 

MORE TAXES, MORE BUREAUCRACY, INCREASED 
LOSS OF MONTANA JOBS and the DESTRUCTION OF 
MONTANA INDUSTRIES: This is Initiative 97. 

Initiative 97 will allow persons with limited training to take x- 
rays. And, with the proposed Board of Denturitry, these same 
individuals would examine and license each other. Insufficient 
training may result in potential heahh hazards to the people of 
the State of Montana. 

The educational standards suggested in this initiative are mini- 
mal. The two-week courses at Idaho State University were Con- 
tinuing Education courses, not for college credit. 

Established Dental Laboratory Technicians and Dentists al- 
ready provide high quality dental care under the health safe- 
guard established by the State. Proponents of Initiative 97 want 
an EXCLUSION FROM STATE STANDARDS. 

Initiative 97, if passed, will REPLACE A MONTANA IN- 
DUSTRY IT WILL NOT CREATE JOBS: IT WILL RE- 
PLACE MONTANA JOBS. 

SUPPORT MONTANA DENTAL LABORATORIES BY 
DEFEATING INITIATIVE 97. BUY FROM MONTANANS, 
NOT OUT-OF-STATE-INTERESTS. 

Those who support Initiative 97 claim reduced costs of fifty 
percent or more. IVIany dentists in Montana presently offer den- 
tures at prices similar to those offered by "denturists." These are 
provided by dentists, fully educated and trained to practice den- 
tistry. 

Those "DENTURISTS" presently operating are OPENLY 
FLAUNTING MONTANA LAW. They presently are operating 
illegally in open disregard of our Montana laws. 

SUPPORT HOMEGROWN, LOCALLY ESTABLISHED 
BUSINESSES. DEFEAT INITIATIVE 97, AN OUT-OF- 
STATE SPONSORED INITIATIVE! 

These Arguments Prepared by: Elmer N. Cox, Great Falls; 
Larry O. Michaelson, Helena; Margaret E. Newman, Columbia 
Falls; Gary L. Mihelish, DMD, Helena; and John R. Beatty 
Butte. 



11 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 

AMENDMENT NO. 13 



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA: 

Section 1. Article VII, section 11 , of the Constitution of the State of 
Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 1 1 . Removal and discipline. ( 1 ) The legislature shall create a 
judicial standards commission consisting of five persons and provide 
for the appointment thereto of two district judges, one attorney, and 
two citizens who are neither judges nor attorneys. 

(2) The commission shall investigate complaints, and make rules 
implementing this section. It may subpoena witnesses and documents. 

(3) Upon recommendation of the commission, the supreme court 
may: 

(a) Retire any justice or judge for disability that seriously interferes 
with the performance of his duties and is or may become permanent; or 

(b) Censure, suspend, or remove any justice or judge for willful 
misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his 
duties, violation of canons of judicial ethics adopted by the supreme 
court of the state of Montana, or habitual intemperance. 

(4) The proceedings of the commission are confidential except as 
provided by statute." 

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electors at the general 
election to be held November 6, 1984, this amendment shall become 
effective on that date. 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 

AMENDMENT NO. 14 



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

Section 1. Article V, section 14, of the Constitution of the State of 
Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 14. Districting and apportionment. (I) The state shall be 
divided into as many districts as there are members of the house, and 
each district shall elect one representative. Each senate district shall be 
composed of two adjoining house districts, and shall elect one senator. 
Each district shall consist of compact and contiguous territory All 
districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable. 

(2) In the legislative session following ratification of this constitution 
and thereafter in each session preceding each federal population cen- 
sus, a commission of five citizens, none of whom may be public offi- 
cials, shall be selected to prepare a plan for redistricting and 
reapportioning the state into legislative districts and a plan for redis- 
tricting the state into congressional districts . The majority and minority 
leaders of each house shall each designate one commissioner. Within 20 
days after their designation, the four commissioners shall select the 
fifth member, who shall serve as chairman of the commission. If the 
four members fail to select the fifth member within the time prescribed, 
a majority of the supreme court shall select him. 

(3) Within 90 days after the official final decennial census figures are 
available, the commission shall file its final plan for congressional 
districts with the secretary of state and it shall become law. 

(4) The commission shall submit its plan for legislative districts to the 
legislature at the first regular session after its appointment or after the 
census figures are available. Within 30 days after submission, the legis- 
lature shall return the plan to the commission with its recommenda- 
tions. Within 30 days thereafter, the commission shall file its final plan 
for legislative districts with the secretary of state and it shall become 
law. 

(5) Upon filing both plans, the commission is dissolved." 
Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this amend- 
ment becomes effective October 1, 1985. 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 
INITIATIVE NO. 23 



BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE ST.ATE OF 
MONTANA: 

Section 1. Article V of the Constitution of the State of Montana is 
amended to read: 

"Section 5. Compensation. (1) Each member of the legislature shall 
receive compensation for his services and allowances provided by law, 
except as provided in subsection (2). No legislature may fix its own 
compensation. 

(2) No compensation or allowance shall be paid a member during an 
extended session pursuant to Section 6 (2) of this article. " 

"Section 6. Sessions. (1) The legislature shall meet each odd num- 
bered year in regular session of not more than 90 legislative days. Any 
legislature may increase the limit on the length of any subsequent ses- 
sion. The legislature may be convened in special sessions by the gov- 
ernor at the written request of the majority of the members. 

(2) If the resolution required in Section 15 of this Article is not 
enacted within 90 legislative days each house of the legislature shall be 
required to continue sitting at Helena for the exclusive and limited 
purpose of considering and deliberating on that resolution until such 
resolution is adopted. No recess or adjournment in excess of 3 calendar 
days shall be permitted until a resolution is adopted and transmitted as 
provided in Section 15." ~~ 

New Section. Section 15. Application to Article V of the constitution 
of the United States for an application to Congress for a balanced 
federal budget amendment. (1) The people of the state of Montana 
herewith adopt and direct the next regular legislative session to adopt 
the following resolution and submit the same to the Congress of the 
United States under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of 
the United States: 

WHEREAS, with each passing year this nation becomes more 
deeply in debt as the expenditures grossly and repeatedly exceed availa- 
ble revenue, so that the public debt now exceeds one trillion four hun- 
dred billion dollars; and 

WHEREAS, the annual federal budget continually demonstrates an 
unwillingness and inability of both the legislative and executive 
branches of the federal government to curtail spending to conform to 
available revenue; and 

WHEREAS, unified budgets do not refelect actual spending because 
of the exclusion of special outlays which are not included in the budget; 
and 

WHEREAS, knowledgeable planning and fiscal prudence require that 
the budget reflect all spending and be in balance on a regular basis; and 

WHEREAS, believing that fiscal irresponsibility at the federal level, 
with the inflation and high interest rates which result, is one of the 
greatest threats facing our nation; and 

WHEREAS, we firmly believe that a constitutional restraint is nec- 
essary to bring the fiscal discipline needed to restore financial responsi- 
bility; and 

WHEREAS, under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, 
upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, the 
Congress shall call a convention for the purpose of proposing amend- 
ments to the federal Constitution, which action we believe is vital. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA: 

That the Legislature of the State of Montana propose and applica- 
tion is hereby made to the Congress of the United States, pursuant to 
.\rticle V of the Constitution of the United States, to call a convention 
for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States to require, with certain exceptions, that the federal 
budget be balanced. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this application constitutes a 
continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States until at least two-thirds of the several states 
have made similar application pursuant to Article V. 



12 



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the Congress of the United 
States proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
indenticai in subject matter to that contained herein and submit the 
same to the states for ratification, this application shall no longer be of 
any force and effect. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this application shall be con- 
sidered void, rescinded and of no effect if such convention not be 
limited to such specific and exclusive purposes. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the Senate, 
Clerk of the House and Secretary of State be directed to transmit copies 
of this application to the Secretary of the United States Senate and 
Clerk of the United States House of Representatives of the Congress of 
the United States, to the members of the United States Senate and 
House of Representatives from this state and to the presiding officers 
of each of the legislatures in the several states requesting the legislatures 
of those states to adopt resolutions calling for a constitutional conven- 
tion on an issue of balancing the federal budget. 

(2) The secretary of state is directed to transmit copies of this consti- 
tutional amendment adopted by the people of Montana to the secretary 
of the United States Senate and the clerk of the United States House of 
Representatives of the Congress of the United States, to the members 
of the Uniteds States Senate and House of Representatives from this 
state, and to the presiding officers of each of the legislatures in the 
several states requesting the legislatures of those states to adopt resolu- 
tions calling for a constitutional convention or an issue to balancing the 
federal budget. The secretary of state shall transmit such copies of this 
amendment upon the expiration of the first 90 legislative days of delib- 
eration by the 49th legislature of this state. 

Section 2. 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 appli- 
cations. If the mandatory provisions of this act are held to be imper- 
missible, this amendment is to be considered nonbinding by the 
legislature. 

Section 3. Termination Date. This amendment terminates upon a 
call by Congress for a limited constitutional convention for the sole 
purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States or for the ratification of an amendment to require, with certain 
exceptions, that the federal budget be balanced. 

Section 4. Effective Date. This amendment is effective on passage 
and approval by the people of the State of Montana. 



Complete Text of 
INITIATIVE 
NO. 96 



WHEREAS, the purpose of the Board of Milk Control is to establish 
the minimum price at which milk can be sold at the producer, whole- 
sale, and retail levels. 

WHEREAS, the effect of these controls has been to keep milk prices 
higher than if they were not regulated. 

WHEREAS, in 1982 the Office of the Legislative Auditor concluded 
that if milk prices were decontrolled at all levels, there would not be a 
major impact on the Montana dairy industry, or on the supply and 
quality of milk. 

WHEREAS, the Auditor's report also concluded that prices for milk 
would be lower if decontrol is enacted. 

WHEREAS, the quality standards for milk are not established or 
regulated by the Board of Milk Control, and therefore would not be 
affected by this initiative. 

THEREFORE, it is in the interest of Montanans to abolish the 
Board of Milk Control, and by doing so deregulate the price of milk. 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA: 

Section 1. Repealer. Section 2-15-1802, MCA, and Title 81, chapter 
23, MCA, are repealed. 

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, this act is 
effective January I, 1985. 




Complete Text of 
INITIATIVE 
NO. 97 




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

Section 1. Short title. {This act) may be cited as the "Freedom of 
Choice in Denture services Act of 1984." 

Section 2. Definitions. As used in (this act), unless the context re- 
quires otherwise, the following definitions apply: 

(1) "Board" means the state board of denturitry provided for in 
(Section 7). 

(2) "Denture" means any removable full or partial upper or lower 
prosthetic dental appliance to be worn in the mouth. 

(3) "Denturist" means a person licensed under (this act) to engage in 
the practice of denturitry. 

(4) "Department" means department of commerce provided for in 
Title 2, Chapter 15, part 18. 

(5) "Immediate denture" means a denture constructed prior to and 
inserted immediately after extraction of teeth. 

(6) "Practice of denturitry" means: 

(a) the making, fitting, constructing, altering, reproducing or re- 
pairing of a denture and furnishing or supplying of a denture directly to 
a person or advising the use of a denture; or 

(b) the taking or making or the giving of advice, assistance, or facili- 
ties respecting the taking or making of any impression, bite, cast, or 
design preparatory to or for the purpose of making, constructing, fit- 
ting, furnishing, supplying, altering, repairing, or reproducing a den- 
ture. 

Section 3. License to practice required. 

(1) After April 1 , 1985, a person must hold a license for the practice 
of denturitry in order to perform the following acts: 

(a) engaging or offering to engage in the practice of denturitry; or 

(b) use in connection with his name the word or letters "denturist," 
"L.D.," or any other words, letters, abbreviations, or insignia imply- 
ing that such person is engaged in the practice of denturitry. 

(2) The practice of denturitry within the context of (this act) requires 
that all work except cast frame work be performed at the address 
shown on the denturist's license. 

Section 4. Exceptions. The provisions of (this act) do not apply to: 

(1) a person interning under the direct supervision of a licensed den- 
turist as required by (Section 1 1 (2) of this act), provided that no den- 
turist may supervise more than one such person at any one time. 

(2) the practice of dentistry or medicine by persons authorized to do 
so by the state of Montana; or 

(3) a student of denturitry in pursuit of clinical studies under a school 
program or internship as required by (Section 1 1 (2) of this act). 

Section 5. Prohibitions. No licensed denturist may: 

(1) extract or attempt to extract teeth; 

(2) initially insert immediate dentures in the mouth of the intended 
wearer; 

(3) diagnose or treat any abnormalities; 

(4) recommend any prescription drug for any oral or medical disease; 
or 

(5) construct or fit orthodontic appliances. 

Section 6. Standards of conduct and practice. Each denturist must 
comply with the following standards in his practice: 

(1) There shall be at least three separate rooms: 

(a) a reception room; 

(b) an operatory room; and 

(c) a laboratory. 

(2) The operatory room must have a sink and cuspidor with running 
water and a disposal system. 

(3) There must be a sterilization unit, and cold disinfectant in every 
office, to insure the protection of the public. Each denturist shall take 
care to use proper sterilization and sanitation techniques in all phases 
of his work. 

(4) Floors, walls, ceilings, and benches must be kept in a sanitary 
condition. 



13 



(5) Every patient must have a separate and clean bib and a disposable 
cup. 

(6) Every denturist shall wear a clean and professional garment. 

(7) Every denturist shall wash his hands with germicidal or antiseptic 
soap and water in the presence of each patient. 

(8) Every licensed denturist must carry a current cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation card. 

(9) Adequate and conveniently located toilet facilities must be pro- 
vided within the building. 

(10) A complete record of each patient must be kept. 

(1 1) All teeth and materials used shall meet american dental associa- 
tion standards. 

(12) All nonmetal full dentures shall be permanently identifed with 
the first and last name of the owner at the time of processing the 
dentures. 

Section 7. Board — membership — vacancies. 

(1) There is a Montana state board of denturitry. The board consists 
of five members to be appointed by the governor within 30 days of 
adoption of (this act). The board shall be appointed as prescribed in 
Section 2-15-124, except that a member need not be an attorney. Three 
members of the board must be denturists who have had, immediately 
prior to their appointment, at least 5 years' experience in the practice of 
denturitry Two members of the board must be lay persons, one mem- 
ber a senior citizen representative and the other member a low income 
representative. 

(2) Members of the board shall hold office for terms of 3 years each. 

(3) Each member ofthe board shall hold office for his term and until 
his successor is duly appointed by the governor. 

(4) The Board is attached to the department for administrative pur- 
poses only as provided in 2-15-121. 

Section 8. Officers, meetings, voting, records, fair practice commit- 
tee. 

(1) The board shall elect a president, secretary, and treasurer. The 
offices of secretary and treasurer may be held by the same person. 
Officers of the board are elected for terms of 1 year at the annual 
meeting of the board. The same person may not hold the office of 
president for more than 3 years in succession. 

(2) The board must hold meetings on the second Friday of December 
and the second Friday of May to conduct business and perform duties. 
The board may meet at such other times as designated by the president 
or by request of two or more members of the board. Meetings must be 
held in the offices of the board. Dates and places may be changed 
through notification by the board at least 10 days prior to the regular 
meeting date or the date established for a meeting, whichever is earlier. 

(3) A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for all purposes, 
and the majority vote of the members voting constitutes the action of 
the board. 

(4) The secretary of the board must keep a complete record of all of 
its proceedings. 

(5) The board shall appoint a fair practice committee consisting of 
three denturists .selected from the membership of the association of 
Montana denturists. This committee may meet as need arises and must 
file a written report with the board containing its recommendations. 

Section 9. Compensation and expenses of board members of excess 
funds — expenditure limitations. 

(1) Out ofthe funds derived from fees collected under (this act) each 
member of the board must receive compensation and travel expenses as 
provided for in 37-1-133, with the exception that denturist members of 
the board may receive compensation for expenses only. 

(2) Money collected in excess of expenses and salaries must be held 
by the department as a special fund for meeting the expenses of the 
board, the proper administration of (this act), and educational pur- 
poses approved by the board. 

(3) The department is not obligated to pay claims which, in aggregate 
with claims already paid exceed the income to the department which 
has been derived by the application of (this act). 

Section 10. Board powers and duties. The board has the following 
powers and duties: 

(1) determination of the qualifications of applicants for licensure 
under (this act); 



(2) administration of examinations and determination of a passing 
grade for licensure under (this act); 

(3) collection of fees and charges prescribed in (this act); and 

(4) issuance, suspension and revocation of licenses for the practice of 
denturitry under the conditions prescribed in (this act). 

Section 11. Application for license. Upon application and payment 
of the appropriate fee, the board shall issue a license to practice den- 
turitry to any applicant who meets one of the following criteria and 
scores a passing grade on the examination for licensure: 

(1) Applications for persons engaged in the practiceof denturitry on 
December 1, 1984, must be filed prior to April 1, 1985, and must 
include the following: 

(a) three signed affidavits by persons other than family members that 
the applicant has been employed in denture technology for at least 5 
years prior to application, is able to demonstrate competency in intra- 
oral procedures, and has been a resident of the state of Montana for at 
least 6 months prior to April 1, 1985; and 

(b) documentation that the applicant has successfully completed 
courses approved by the board in head and oral anatomy and phy- 
siology, oral pathology, partial denture construction and design, clini- 
cal dental technology, radiology, dental laboratory technology, asepsis, 
clinical jurisprudence, medical emergencies, and cardiopulmonary re- 
suscitation. 

(2) Applications filed on or after April 1, 1985, must include: 

(a) documentation that the applicant has completed formal training 
of not less than 2 years at an educational institution accredited by a 
national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the Montana 
state board of regents, the curriculum of w hich includes courses in head 
and oral anatomy and physiology, oral pathology, microbiology, partial 
denture construction and design, clinical dental technology, radiology, 
dental laboratory technology, asepsis, clinical jurisprudence, and medi- 
cal emergencies including cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and 

(b) documentation that the applicant: 

(i) has completed 2 years of internship under the direct supervi- 
sion of a licensed denturist; or 

(ii) has 3 years of experience as a denturist under licensure in 
another state or Canada. 

(3) A denturist who has been lawfully licensed or certified by initial 
licensing provisions in any state or territory that maintains a standard 
of denturitry which is equal to that of Montana must submit a certifi- 
cate from the examining body of the state or territory in which he is 
certified or licensed attesting to 5 years practice under the certificate of 
license. However, no applicant may be licensed under the provisions of 
(this subsection) unless the state or territory in which he is licensed or 
certified extends a like privilege to denturists licensed by the state of 
Montana to practice denturitry. The board may enter into reciprocal 
relations with those boards in states or territories whose laws are com- 
patible with (this act). 

Section 12. Examinations. The board shall administer the examina- 
tions for licensure, subject to the following requirements: 

(1) Examinations must be of such character as to determine the 
qualifications, fitness and ability of the applicant to practice denturi- 
try. The form of the test must include written and oral examinations 
and a practical demonstration of skills. 

(2) Examinations must be held at least annually on the second Mon- 
day in July. An applicant must obtain an average percentage score of 
75% or better to qualify for licensure. The written and practical ex- 
aminations shall carry equal weight. The oral examination results may 
adjust an average score only two percentage points. 

(3) The written examination must include coverage of the following 
subjects: 

(a) head and oral anatomy and physiology; 

(b) oral pathology; 

(c) partial denture construction £md design; 

(d) microbiology; 

(e) radiology; 

(D clinical dental technology; 

(g) dental laboratory technology; 

(h) asepsis; 

(i) clinical jurisprudence; 

(j) medical emergencies. 



14 



(4) Applicants who fail to score a 75°7o average on the written and 
practical examinations may, upon payment of the appropriate fee, have 
a second opportunity to take the written or practical examinations, or 
both, provided that all applicants under (section 11 (1) of this act) are 
examined on or before April 1, 1985. 

Section 13. Applications and fees. The board is entitled to charge 
and collect the following fees: 

(1) $200 application for licensing; 

(2) $200 for original license; 

(3) $200 annual license renewal fee; 

(4) $200 for examination or reexamination, provided that if on reex- 
amination only the written examination is required, the fee is $100; and 

(5) $50 for a duplicate or replacement license or a license for a second 
address, provided that no denturist may hold licenses bearing more 
than two different addresses. 

Section 14. Licensing. 

( 1 ) A denturist license is valid for a period of 1 year. A renewal license 
must be issued upon payment of the renewal fee and the submission of 
proof of the completion of not less than 1 2 hours continuing education , 
which may include programs sponsored by an educational institution, 
state denturist board, or a recognized denturist organization. Subject 
matter must be pertinent to denturitry as enumerated in (section 12 (3) 
of this act.) Requests for approval of continuing education programs 
must be made to the board, providing sufficient outline of the program 
on which the board may base its determination. Hours pertain to clock 
hours actually attended by the licensee. In addition, the denturist shall 
submit proof that he holds a current cardiopulmonary resuscitation 
card. A license issued effective as of a date other than March 1 will be 
valid until midnight February 28 next following the date it was issued. 
The license shall bear on its face the address where the licensee's den- 
turist services will be performed. 

(2) Licensure applications must be received by the department on or 
before April 1 preceding the July examination. Applications must be 
submitted on forms approved by the board and furnished by the de- 
partment. Each application must include all other documentations nec- 
essary to establish that the applicant meets the requirements for 
licensure and is eligible to take the licensure examination. Applications 
must be accompanied by the appropriate fees. Applications received 
after April 1 will be held over for examination the following year 

Section 15. Suspension or revocation of license. 

( 1 ) The board has the power to refuse to issue a license, to suspend or 
revoke a license or to place a licensed person on probation for a period 
specified by the board, or to reprimand or censure a licensee for any of 
the following causes: 

(a) conviction of a crime if that crime bears a demonstrable relation- 
ship to the practice of denturitry; 

(b) incompetence or gross negligence in the practice of denturitry; 

(c) fraud or misrepresentation in the practice of denturitry; 

(d) the use of any narcotic or dangerous drug or intoxicating liquor 
to an extent that such use impairs the ability to conduct safely the 
practice of denturitry; or 

(e) the willful violation of any provision of (this act). 

(2) The board or its agents may examine and inspect the place of 
business of any denturist at any time during business hours or upon at 
least 72 hours notice made by U .S. mail to the address of record of the 
denturist if the board or its agents are unable to establish the regular 
business hours. Inspections must be made to insure compliance with 
the standards of conduct and practice set for in (section 6 of this act). 

(3) Conditions considered by investigators to be a menace to the 
public health must be brought to the attention of the board for consid- 
eration and immediate action. 

Section 16. Revocation of license stays eligibility. A denturist whose 
license has been revoked either by the Montana board of denturitry or 
the similar body of another state is not eligible to apply for a license 
until 1 year after the date of revocation. 

Section 17. Renewal or reinstatement of license. One year after revo- 
cation of a license, the board at its discretion may grant a temporary 
license under a 1 year probationary period. At the end of the proba- 
tionary period, the licensee must appear before the board and upon 
approval by the board and payment of appropriate fee must be fully 
reinstated. The board shall grant such approval upon being satisfied 



that the licensee has complied with (this act) during the probationary 
period and will comply in the future. 

Section 18. Health insurance policies to include denturist services. 
Notwithstanding any provision of any policy of insurance covering 
health, whenever such policy provides for reimbursement for any serv- 
ice that is within the lawful scope of practice of a denturist, the insured 
under such policy is entitled to reimbursement for such service, whether 
the service is performed by a licensed dentist or a licensed denturist. 

Section 19. Association with Dentists Permitted. 

(1) A licensed denturist may enter into any lawful agicLnient with a 
dentist regarding fees, compensation, and business association. 

Section 20. Notice of board address, guarantee. 

(1) A notice must be posted in a conspicuous area on any premises 
where the practice of denturitry is conducted, with lettering of a size 
easily read by the average person and in substantially the following 
form: 

ANY CONSUMER WHO HAS A COMPLAINT 
RELATING TO PRACTICES OF THIS 
ESTABLISHMENT MAY CONTACT THE MONTANA 
BOARD OF DENTURITRY, DEPARTMENT OF 
COMMERCE, 1424 NINTH AVENUE, HELENA, 
MONTANA 59620. 

(2) All denturist services must be unconditionally guaranteed for a 
period of not less than 90 days. 

Section 21. Violation and penalty Violation of any provision of (this 
act) constitutes a misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by a 
fine of not less than $100 or more than $1 ,000 or by imprisonment for 
not more than 6 months in the county jail, or by both such fine and 
imprisonment. 

Section 22. Judicial review of board action. A person who is ag- 
grieved by an action of the board, in denying, refusing to renew, sus- 
pending or revoking a denturist license may appeal to the district court 
in the county in which he resides. Such appeal is perfected by filing with 
the clerk of the court, within 30 days following the action of the board 
of which complaint is made, a notice of appeal setting forth briefly the 
action complained of and how the petitioner has been deprived of any 
legal rights. A copy of the notice of appeal must be served upon the 
president or secretary of the board, with notice to the attorney general 
of the state of Montana in the manner of civil appeal, and the court 
may sustain or reverse the action of the board or direct the board to 
take further or other action with regard to the appeal. 

Section 23. Nominees for appointment to the original board must be 
examined by qualified examiners from a state that currently authorizes 
the practice of denturitry. The examinations must be established by the 
examining team and be the equivalent of examinations administered 
for hcensing of denturists in the states represented by the examiners. 
The examiners shall establish a passing grade, and satisfactory comple- 
tion of the original examination will qualify the nominees for licensing 
in Montana and for service on the Montana board of denturitry Nomi- 
nees who do not score a passing grade on the original examination may 
apply for reexamination to the Montana board of denturitry Expense 
of examination for nominees is not the responsibility of the board. 

Section 24. Section 37-4-103, MCA, is amended to read: 

"37-4-103. Exemptions. (1) A dental laboratory or dental technician 
is not practicing dentistry under this chapter when engaged in the con- 
struction, making, alteration, or repairing of bridges, crowns, den- 
tures, or other prosthetic appliances, surgical appliances, or 
orthodontic appliances if the casts, models, or impressions on which 
the work is constructed have been made by a regularly licensed and 
practicing dentist and the crowns, bridges, dentures, prosthetic ap- 
pliances, surgical appliances, or orthodontic appliances are returned to 
the dentist on whose order the work was constructed. 

(2) Section 37-4-101 (2) and part 5 of this chapter do not apply to a 
legally qualified physician or surgeon or to a dental surgeon of the 
United States army, navy, public health service, or veterans' bureau or 
to a legal practitioner of another state making a clinical demonstration 
before a dental society, convention, or association of dentists or to a 
licensed dental hygienist performing an act authorized under 37-4-401 
or 37-4-405. 

(3) Nothing in this chapter prevents a bona fide faculty member of a 
school, college, or department of a university recognized and approved 



15 



by the board from performing dental procedures necessary to his 
teaching functions. Nothing in this chapter prevents students from 
performing dental procedures under the supervision of a bonafide in- 
structor of a school, college, or department of a university recognized 
and approved by the board provided such dental procedures are a part 
of the assigned teaching curriculum. 

(4) This chapter does not prohibit or require a license with respect to 
the practice of denturitry under the conditions and limitations defineB 
by (sections 1 through 22). None of the regulations contained in this 
chapter apply to a person engaged in the lawful practice of denturitry." 
Section 25. Section 37-14-102, MCA, is amended to read: 
"37-14-102. Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context clearly 
requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: 

(1) "Board" means the board of radiologic technologists provided 
for in 2-15-1848. 

(2) "Department" means the department of commerce. 

(3) "License" means an authorization to apply x-ray radiation to 
persons issued by the department of commerce. 

(4) "Licensed practitioner" means a person licensed or otherwise 
authorized by law to practice medicine, dentistry, denturitry, dental 
hygiene, podiatry, chiropody, osteopathy, or chiropractic. 

(5) "Permit" means an authorization which may be granted by the 
board to apply x-ray radiation to persons when the applicant's qualifi- 
cations do not meet standards required for the issuance of a license. 

(6) "Radiologic technologist" means a person other than a licensed 
practitioner who applies diagnostic x-ray radiation to persons." 

Section 26. Section 37-14-301, MCA, is amended to read: 

"37-14-301. Limitation of license authority-exemptions. 

(1) No person may apply x-ray radiation to a person unless licensed 
under this chapter, with the following provisos: 

(a) Licensure is not required for: 

(i) a student enrolled in and attending a school or college of 
medicine, osteopathy, chiropody, podiatry, dentistry, dental hygiene, 
chiropractic, or radiologic technology who applies x-ray radiation to 
persons under the specific direction of a person licensed to prescribe 
such examinations or treatment; 

(ii) a person administering x-ray examinations related to the prac- 
tice of dentistry or denturitry 



(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or affect in any 
respect the practice of their respective professions by duly licensed 
practitioners. 

(2) A person licensed as a radiologic technologist may apply x-ray 
radiation to persons for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes 
under the specific direction of a person licensed to prescribe such ex- 
aminations or treatments. 

(3) A radiologic technologist licensed under this chapter may inject 
contrast media and radioactive isotopes (radio-nuclide material) in- 
travenously upon request of a duly licensed practitioner, in the case of 
contrast media, the licensed practitioner requesting the procedure or 
the radiologist must be immediately available within the x-ray depart- 
ment. Such injections must be for diagnostic studies only and not for 
therapeutic purposes. The permitted injections include peripheral in- 
travenous injections but specifically exclude intra-arterial or intra- 
catheter injections. An uncertified radiologic technologist or a 
permitholder under 37-14-306 may not perform any of the activities 
listed in this subsection." 

Section 27. Initial Board. Of the initial board, the three members to 
be appointed from nominations of the association of Montana den- 
turists shall serve for terms of 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years respectively, 
as designated in their appointment. Of the initial board, the two lay 
person respresentatives shall serve terms of 3 and 2 years respectively, 
as designated in their appointment. Thereafter, members must be ap- 
pointed to the board for terms of 3 years each, except that appointment 
to fill vacancies must be for the unexpired term of such vacancy. 

Section 28. 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 appli- 
cations. 

Section 29. Codification instruction. 

(1) Sections I through 6 and 8 through 22 are codified as an integral 
part of Title 37. 

(2) Section 7 is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 2, 
chapter 15. 

Section 30. Effective date. This act is effective December 1, 1984. 



JIM WALTERMIRE 

Secretary of Stale 
Montana State Capitol 
Helena, MX 59620 



NOTICE 

Electors are advised that rio 
vote ujill be had on 
Constitutional Initiative No. 
23 as it has been declared 
unconstitutional 



This Voter Information Pamphlet was printed in and 
distributed from Utah under the terms of a competi- 
tively bio ■ ..nri.Tt awarded by the Department of Ad- 
minibtiiitii.n f' II ihe State of f^ontana 



460.000 copies of this public document were 
published at an estimated cost of $5'/i t per copy, for 
a total cost of $24,250.00. which includes $22,250.00 
for printing and $2,000 00 for distribution 



16 



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