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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11