(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 

1988 




1988 Voter Information Pamphlet 





Introduction 3 0864 1004 3866 5 

On November 8. the State of Montana will celebrate its 99th birthday. It is also the day Montan- 
ans will go to the polls to exercise their right to vote. In addition to the federal, state and local offices 
which appear on the ballot, you will be considering seven state ballot issues. This pamphlet contains 
information about each of those issues and is being sent to every registered voter in Montana as 
required by law. I encourage you to take some time to read this important material. Then kick-off 
our Centennial Year by voting on election day. Make your voice heard in setting the stage for Mon- 
tana's second hundred years. 

The first 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 Gen- 
eral: "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. 



"'STATt DOCUMENTS COLLECTION 
NOV 3 1988 

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 

1516 E. 6th AVE. 
HELENA, MONTANA 59620 






^■C^^yyU-^U 



VERNER L. BERTELSEN 

Secretary of State 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Arguments Text 

No. 17 , 2,3 16 

No. 18 4,5 16,17 

No. 19 6,7 17 

No. 20 8,9 17,18 

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 

No. 106 10,11 18 

INITIATIVES 

No. 1 10 12, 13 18, 19 

No. 1 13 14, 15 19-21 




PLEASE RETU 





CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 17 



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 VIII. SECTION 
13. OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE CER- 
TAIN CONSTRAINTS ON INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS 
AND PROVIDE FOR INVESTMENT AS AUTHORIZED BY 
THE LEGISLATURE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE 
DATE. 



Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vole. It would 
amend the Montana Constitution to remove certain restrictions on 
the investment of public funds. Currently the Constitution specifies 
how school funds must be invested and prohibits the investment of 
most public funds in private corporate capital stock. This proposal 
would eliminate such restrictions and instead simply require that 
the investment program be administered as provided by law. 



Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 



17 



The current language in the Constitution restricts the abil- 
ity of the Board of Investments to generate higher returns for 
investment of state funds. (Example: Permanent Coal Trust 
Fund.) Higiier rates of return generated b> inclusion of com- 
mon stocks would add revenues to the state and lessen need 
for increased taxes. 

Historically common stocks have returned a significantly 
higher yield than bonds. In the 58-year period from 1926 to 
1983 (including the 1929 Depression), stocks returned 9.6 
percent versus only 4.2 percent for fixed-rate securities. Ex- 
perience at the State Investment Board shows a 10-year aver- 
age return on common stocks of 18 percent while the return 
on bonds was 1 1 .0 percent. 

State public monies like the Permanent Trust Fund are 
held for the long-term benefit of all Montanans. present and 
future. The stale's responsibility to maintain the purchasing 
power of these funds can only be met during inflationary per- 
iods by allowing investments in capital stock which can expe- 
rience growih. Fixed-rate investments inevitably lose value 
in such times. The proposed change would permit long-term 
state trust funds, like the Permanent Coal Trust Fund which 
benefits all Montanans. to participate in the higher returns 
generated by common stocks. 

The requested investment flexibility is already permitted 
for Montana uublk retirement funds. The change would ool 
require use of corporate capital stock but would permit the 
State Investment Board this option when it best series the 
goal of preserving and enhancing the value of Montana's 
public monies. 

This constitutional amendment would allow state public 
funds to be invested in corporate capital stock (common 
stock and other equity securities) as well as in bonds and se- 
curities bearing a fixed-rate of interest to the extent that com- 
mon stock is prudent. Public funds, like the Treasurer's Fund 
and the General Fund, which are used for current expendi- 
tures, would aoi be invested in common stocks. 

We urge you to vote YES on C- 1 7. 



Rebuttal of .\rgument .\gainst 
Constitutional .\mendment No. 17 

The opponents are in error when they stale that we can 
currently invest other state funds in common slocks. The 
minutes of the Constitutional Con\enlion are clear on this. 
The Board needs this amendment to allow these investments. 

The Board shares the opponent's concerns about market 
fluctuations and uses a ver> conservative strategy in manag- 
ing the common slock portfolio to protect the public's inter- 
ests. 

The record speaks for itself Montana's Retirement Fund 
Common Stock Pool at June 30. 1988, alkr the October 
"meltdown." showed a paper gain exceeding $85 million. 
This portfolio is invested in common stock of companies like 
IBM. Delta. Pillsbun,. Exxon, and Norwesl. hardly the start- 
up businesses suggested by the opponents. 

If the Board could invest a portion of other public funds in 
the same manner, these types of gains could be used instead 
of tax dollars to provide needed public senices. 

Vote ves for C- 1 7. 



These .Arguments Prepared by: Senator Greg Jergeson, 
Chinook; Representative Bruce Simon, Billings; and Steven 
Brown. Helena, 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 17 



D FOR removing constraints on investment of public funds and allowing invest- 
ment as authorized by the legislature. 

D AGAINST removing constraints on investment of public funds and allowing in- 
vestment as authorized by the legislature. 



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. 1 7 appears on 
page 16. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 17 

Now, once again, comes the Board of Investment wanting 
to remove all constitutional restrictions on its investing 
powers. This idea was REJECTED by the voters in 1 982. The 
1985 legislature refused a request to put the issue on the bal- 
lot again but in 1 987 the legislature was again lobbied to put 
the issue on the ballot. 

If this amendment is passed it would remove all constitu- 
tional restrictions and the Board would be free to follow the 
"prudent expert principle" for investment of public funds as 
determined by statute (MCA 17-6-201 ). 

The Constitution now states: "Except for monies contrib- 
uted for retirement funds, NO PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL BE 
INVESTED IN PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL 
STOCK." (emphasis added) In plain words, no taxpayer 
money collected for payment of government services can be 
invested in PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL (that is in 
start-up business) STOCK, which is a high risk area of invest- 
ment. Under "prudent expert" standards the Board can still 
invest in PUBLIC corporation stocks listed on national ex- 
changes. 

Investors can sadly recall what happened on October 19, 
1987 when the "meltdown" sent the Dow Jones Industrial 
averages plunging 508 points with an estimated paper loss of 
$560 BILLIONS! Many banks, financial institutions, and 
brokerage houses are still wobbling from the effects of specu- 
lative investments. 

We see no good result nor any compelling reason for re- 
moving the present constitutional clause prohibiting specula- 
tive investments. The writers of the constitution wisely 
wanted to prevent speculation with public funds and set 
guidelines for investment practices which would preserve 
and protect the principal and assure a determined rate of in- 
terest. 

We urge you to again reject this amendment to our consti- 
tution! 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 17 

The current language m the Montana Constitution re- 
stricts the Board of Investments from generating higher 
losses on their investments of state funds in the event of a 
downturn in the stock market by prohibiting investment in 
common stock of private corporations. Public funds simply 
should not be placed at risk in common stocks. Government 
has a greater responsibility to the citizenry than to "gamble" 
in high risk investments with public funds. 

The proponents of this constitutional amendment give 
emphasis to the possible increased gain of investing in the 
stock market, but they totally ignore the increased risk associ- 
ated with such activity. An individual who is willing to risk 
personal funds for greater gain is totally different from some 
state employee risking public funds in the stock market. The 
state employee selecting the stocks to be purchased has noth- 
ing at risk — the element that makes the private investor cau- 
tious, prudent and sensitive about his selection. This change 
could also lead to "sales pitches" to that state employee se- 
lecting stocks for investment by representatives of "mar- 
ginal' corporations that need the proceeds from the stock sale 
to keep their company afloat. A very undesirable situation. 

Montana voters rejected this proposal in 1982. The Legis- 
lature rejected it in 1985. An intense lobbying effort by spe- 
cial interests in the 1 987 session brings this proposed change 
of Montana's Constitution to you once more. We urge you to 
reject it once again. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Matt Himsl, Kalis- 
pell: Representative Ray Peck, Havre; and Representative 
Francis Bardanouve, Harlem. 




CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 18 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MON- 
TANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XII. SECTION 3, OF THE 
MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE 
GREATER DISCRETION IN PROVIDING ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE 
AND SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES TO THOSE IN 
NEED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Attorney General's Explanatorj' Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the 
Montana Constitution to eliminate the requirement that the Legislature 
provide economic assistance and social and rehabilitative services as may 
be necessary to all inhabitants who are in need of the aid of society by rea- 
son of age, infirmities, or misfortune. The proposal would allow the Legis- 
lature to decide whether to give assistance to those who the Legislature de- 
termines are in need and to establish eligibility criteria for welfare services, 
as well as the duration and level of such services. 



Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 



18 



Constitutional Amendment 18 amends Article XII, Sec- 
tion 3 of the Montana Constitution to give the legislature 
greater discretion in their efforts to control the spiralling 
costs of welfare. 

C-18 take's the decisions about welfare spending away 
from the lawyers and judges and returns them to the peoples" 
elected representatives, where they rightfully belong. C-18 
DOES NOi gut Montana's welfare system, nor does it deny 
assistance to the truly needy. 

Welfare spending is the fastest growing part of the state 
budget. Expenditures of state tax dollars for welfare have in- 
creased from $ 1 3.9 million twenty years ago to $ 1 5 1 .7 mil- 
lion today — an increase of nearly 1100%. Montana ranks 
third of all western states in the amount spent on public wel- 
fare per $ 1 ,000 personal income. Welfare spending will soon 
require one-fourth of all your general tax dollars. 

Legislative efforts to bring escalating welfare costs back 
into line have been systematically overturned by court deci- 
sions. 

The legislature tried to eliminate general assistance bene- 
fits for people who are young, childless and able to work. 
Even though every' other western state except California has 
restricted benefits for the able-bodied, Montana's courts said 
we have to keep paying. 

The legislature tried to limit optional Medicaid services so 
only the truly needy received the benefits. The courts said no. 
At every turn, the lawyers and judges have blocked legislative 
efforts to bring welfare costs back into line. 

That's why more than two-thirds of the legislators last ses- 
sion voted to ask the people to amend their Constitution to 
make it clear that the legislature, not the courts, should set 
welfare spending priorities to make sure our limited tax dol- 
lars go to help the most needy. That's all C- 1 8 does. 

It is important to remember C-18 does nothing to change 
Montana's current welfare system. C-18 leaves it up to a fu- 
ture legislature to hammer out necessary changes. However, 
without C-18. future legislatures will have their hands tied 
and welfare costs will continue to expand out-of-control. 

The three primary uses for general tax revenues in Mon- 
tana are welfare, education, and institutions like the state 
prison. Uncontrollable welfare spending will require lax in- 
creases or cuts in spending for education or both. That's what 
C-18 is all about. 



Our welfare programs in Montana must be restructured. 
Welfare reform is one of the toughtest issues facing state gov- 
ernment. There are limited tax dollars available. We must 
make some tough choices to insure those who most need soci- 
ety's help, receive it. The legislature must have the ability to 
pursue the necessary changes. 

If you believe lawyers and judges should continue setting 
welfare spending priorities, you shouldn't vote for C-18. But. 
if you believe the legislature should get a handle on runaway 
welfare costs while continuing to help the truly needy, give 
them the tools to do it. Vote for C-18. 



Rebuttal of Argument .\gainst 
Constitutional Amendment No. 18 

The opponents of C-18 are wrong! Here's where they are 
mistaken: 

1 ) One of every three Montanans will not be impacted by 
the passage of C-18. C-18 is not a heartless attempt to 
balance the State Budget. It is a compassionate step to 
make sure that the Legislature has the ability to say 
"no", so that limited resources are available for the most 
needy. 

2) The purpose of C- 1 8 is to give the Legislature the ability 
to prioritize needs. It is apparent to most that the elderly, 
sick, and children require more aid from society than the 
young adults, who arc single and able to work. 

3) The passage of C-18 does not remove any benefits or 
take away services now being provided. It merely gives 
the legislature the power to set spcndmg priorities for 
welfare — not lawyers and judges. 

4) The opponents claim that C- 1 8 scraps 1 00 years of con- 
stitutional protection for the needy is clearly false. Two 
committees of the 1 972 constitutional convention deter- 
mined that welfare assistance is not a fundamental right 
and that the provision of services for the truly needy 
should rest with the discretion of the legislature. It's the 
lawyers and judges who have stretched the intent of the 
Constitution. C-18 only returns the power to set welfare 
spending priorities to where it rightfully belongs. 

The compassionate vote on C-1 8 is a vote for the Constitu- 
tional Amendment. Voting for C-18 will ensure those who 
most need our help receive it. 

These .Arguments Prepared by: Senator Greg Jergeson, 
Chinook; Representative Bruce Simon, Billings; and Steven 
Brown. Helena. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 18 
FISCAL NOTE 

PASSAGE OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD NOT IN IT- 
SELF HAVE A FISCAL IMPACT ON THE STATE. IF THE LEGISLATURE EN- 
ACTED LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT THE RECEIPT OF ECONOMIC ASSIST- 
ANCE AND SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, AS ALLOWED BY 
THIS AMENDMENT, THEN STATE EXPENDITURES COULD BE REDUCED. 

n FOR allowing the legislature greater discretion to determine the eligibility, dura- 
tion, and level of economic assistance and social services to those in need. 

n AGAINST allowing the legislature greater discretion to determine the eligibility, 
duration, and level of economic assistance and social services to those in need. 

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. 18 appears on 
pages 16-17. 



1988 VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET 

CXJRRECTIOK 

ON PAGE FOUR (4), UNDER "REBUTTAL ARGUMENT AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 
NO. 18", THE LAST PARAGRAPH INCORRECTLY STATES: 

"THESE ARGUMENTS PREPARED BY: SENATOR GREG JERGESON, CHINOOK; 
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE SIMON, BILLINGS; AND STEVEN BROWN, HELENA." 

THE PROPONENT'S COMMITTEE FOR C18 SHOULD READ: 



"THESE ARGUMENTS PREPARED BY: SENATOR PAUL F. BOYLAN, BOZEMAN; 
REPRESENTATIVE CAL WINSLOW, BILLINGS; AND BEVERLY J. DONALDSON, HELENA." 

THE OPPONENT'S COMMITTEE CORRECTLY SHOWN AS: 

"THESE ARGUMENTS PREPARED BY: SENATOR RICHARD F. MANNING, GREAT FALLS; 
REPRESENTATIVE BEN COHEN, WHITEFISH; AND DONNA METCALF, HELENA." 




VERNER L. BERTELSEN 
SECRETARY OF STATE 



The fact is that the Legislature already has all the discre- 
tion it needs to both provide economic assistance and ensure 
fiscal responsibility with our tax dollars. The Constitution is 
not the problem: the Legislature has simply not done the job 
Montana voters and our Constitution empower it to do. In- 
stead, the Legislature gives voters C-18 in an attempt to 
change the Legislatures' responsibilities. 



i^onsiiiuiion.' i wool ine proponents win noicveii oebcrviiig 
in the next Legislature. Keep the heart in your Constitution. 
Vote AGAINST Constitutional Amendment # 1 8! 

These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Richard F. Man- 
ning, Great Falls; Representative Ben Cohen, Whitefish; and 
Donna Metcalf, Helena. 




CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 18 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MON- 
TANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XII, SECTION 3, OF THE 
MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE 
GREATER DISCRETION IN PROVIDING ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE 
AND SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES TO THOSE IN 
NEED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the 
Montana Constitution to eliminate the requirement that the Legislature 
provide economic assistance and social and rehabilitative services as may 
be necessary to all inhabitants who are in need of the aid of society by rea- 
son of age, infirmities, or misfortune. The proposal would allow the Legis- 
lature to decide whether to give assistance to those who the Legislature de- 
termines are in need and to establish eligibility criteria for welfare services, 
as well as the duration and level of such services. 



(insult. v_jiicuniroiiaDie wenare spending will require tax in- 
creases or cuts in spending for education or both. That's what 
C- 1 8 IS all about. 



II1U3C WUU 



most need our help receive it. 

These .Arguments Prepared by: Senator Greg Jcrgeson, 
Chinook; Represenlali\e Bruce Simon, Billings; and Steven 
Brown. Helena. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 18 
FISCAL NOTE 

PASSAGE OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD NOT IN IT- 
SELF HAVE A FISCAL IMPACT ON THE STATE. IF THE LEGISLATURE EN- 
ACTED LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT THE RECEIPT OF ECONOMIC ASSIST- 
ANCE AND SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, AS ALLOWED BY 
THIS AMENDMENT, THEN STATE EXPENDITURES COULD BE REDUCED. 

D FOR allowing the legislature greater discretion to determine the eligibility, dura- 
tion, and level of economic assistance and social services to those in need. 

D AGAINST allowing the legislature greater discretion to determine the eligibility, 
duration, and level of economic assistance and social services to those in need. 

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. 18 appears on 
pages 16-17. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 18 



r-l8 would immedialelv eliminate conslilutional protec- 
tions for one in every ihrpe Montanans . and place their lives 
in the hands of future Legislatures subject to the whims of 
temporary political and economic pressures. 

These Montanans are our parents, our children, our 
friends and our neighbors. And C-18 would take away your 
constitutional protections if — through no fault of your 
own — you fell on hard times. 

C-18 is a heartless attempt to balance future stale budgets 
on the backs of those Montanans who are economically and 
politically the most vulnerable — the elderly, disabled, poor, 
sick, young and other citizens of our state. 
A legacy of Compassion 

Ever since 1889, when Montana became a slate and our 
Constitution was adopted, we have had a commitment in our 
Constitution to provide for our fellow citizens in their times 
of need. 

The 1972 Constitutional Convention overwhelmingly re- 
affirmed our commitment to provide constitutional protec- 
tion for basic economic assistance and social and rehabilita- 
tive services for all Montanans. 

However, the 1 987 Legislature, in placing C- 1 8 on the bal- 
lot, is asking us to betray this commitment in the name of 
giving the Legislature greater "discretion" to balance the 

budget. 

Voter Deception 

C-1 8 is misleading and deceptive. The heart of the issue— 
which you won't see on your ballot — is whether we will 
change the Constitution from "the Legislature shall provide" 
to "the Legislature may provide." Through C- 1 8, the Legisla- 
ture may or may not ensure that the minimum conditions for 
human dignity are met for you and all other Montanans. In 
reality. C-18 asks Montanans to give up constitutional pro- 
tections we have relied on for 100 years. 

Legislative Responsibility 

C-18 was put on the ballot at a time when the Legislature 
was fighting a temporary budget deficit. Why should we 
change the Constitution — a Constitution that has served and 
protected Montanans well for 100 years — in response to a 
temporary budget deficit? 

The fact is that the Legislature already has all the discre- 
tion it needs to both provide economic assistance and ensure 
fiscal responsibility with our tax dollars. The Constitution is 
not the problem: the Legislature has simply not done the job 
Montana voters and our Constitution empower it to do. In- 
stead, the Legislature gives voters C-18 in an attempt to 
change the Legislatures' responsibilities. 



Keep the Heart in Montana's Constitution 

.As we begin to celebrate Montana's Centennial, we can 
take true pride in our legacy of compassion for our neighbors 
in their times of need. C- 1 8 would put us on the wrong track 
by turning back the clock over 1 00 years. 

Instead, let's keep the heart in Montana's Constituion for 
the next 100 years. This is your Constitution. Protect it from 
the whims of some legislators. Vote AGAINST Constituional 
Amendment No. 18. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 18 

Once again, the proponents of C-18 are deceiving Mon- 
tana voters. 

Nowhere in C- 1 8 does it refer to "the spiraling costs of wel- 
fare." Nor will C-18 lead to fair and just welfare reform. By 
eliminating your constitutional rights , proponents want 
more "discretion" to arhirrarilv discriminate against Mon- 
tanans! 

Why do C-18's proponents discuss only one group of 
beneficiaries — the poor? C-18 would also affect the rights of 
the disabled, abused spouses, children in single parent- 
families, and elderly people in nursing homes, among others. 

Attacking lawyers, judges and our court system may play 
well politically, but the only people the proponents will hurt 
are a small group of politically and economically vulnerable 
individuals who are least able to defend themselves from at- 
tacks by the Legislature. 

The Constitution is not responsible for the increase in wel- 
fare costs. The real causes are: 

* the increase of those who truly need the state's assist- 
ance; 

* the increase in the cost of everyone's medical care, es- 
pecially hospital and long-term care; and 

* the increase in the state's share of programs once fully 
funded by the federal government. 

The general assistance program requires less than 1/2% of 
the total state budget . The cost to the state is miniscule when 
compared to the huge tax breaks proponents have sponsored 
for powerful, multi-state corporations with high-paid lobby- 
ists. 

Who do you trust more , the proponents of C-18 or your 
Constitution? Two of the proponents will not even be serving 
in the next Legislature. Keep the heart in your Constitution. 
Vote AGAINST Constitutional Amendment # 1 8! 

These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Richard F. Man- 
ning. Great Falls; Representative Ben Cohen, Whitefish; and 
Donna Metcalf Helena. 



5 




CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 19 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MON- 
TANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII. SECTION 9, OF THE 
MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE LEGISLA- 
TURE MAY ESTABLISH SPECIFIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS 
FOR JUDGES OTHER THAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, DIS- 
TRICT COURT JUDGES. AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE; AND 
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Attorney General's Explanatorj' Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the 
Montana Constitution to give the Legislature authority to establish resi- 
dency requirements for certain judges. Currently, the Constitution re- 
quires that supreme court justices reside within the state and all other 
judges reside within the jurisdiction where they are elected or appointed. 
This proposal would require supreme court justices to reside within the 
state, district court judges to reside within the district, and justices of the 
peace to reside within the county where they are elected or appointed. The 
residency requirements for all other judges would be provided by law. 



.\rgument For 
Constitutional .Amendment No. 19 

Constitutional Amendment 19 allows the Legislature to 
establish specific residency requirements of judges other 
than supreme court justices, district court judges, and jus- 
tices of the peace. This amendment is designed to allow the 
legislature to let towns of the State of Montana to establish 
residency requirements for Town Judges. At present, under 
the Montana Constitution, a town judge must be a resident of 
the town where he is a judge. 

This amendment is being placed on the ballot by the Legis- 
lature of the State of Montana where it became the first such 
amendment proposal to have unanimous support of all one 
hundred and fifty legislators. There was no opposition in any 
of the committee hearings to the proposal. 

The amendment was proposed at the request of many of 
the smaller towns which have been sharing the same town 
judge. For example, the towns of Joliet. Fromberg. and 
Bridger use the same judge. That arrangement would not be 
allowed under the present language in the Constitution be- 
cause no one person could be a resident in each town. Each 
town would have to hire a separate judge who would be a resi- 
dent of that town. 

For many of the smaller towns this would be an unneces- 
sary expense because each judge must attend the annual 
training seminars. Just the training requirements could add 
an additional two or three thousand dollars each year for 
towns which at present share those costs. .Also, if several 
towns can share the salary costs of a single judge, the towns 
are able to attract a higher qualified person than they might 
otherwise attract. Some towns which now share a judge pay 
around two hundred and fifty dollars a month for his sen- 
ices. Those towns definitely would be forced to increase their 
salary payments again adding unnecessary costs to their 
budgets. 

The budget of ever> governmental body, including the 
smaller towns, are extremely high. Nearly everyone is de- 
manding, and rightfully so. that governmental services be ef- 
ficient. This amendment is an opportunity to save money 
and still provide the necessary services. 

Finally, this should be a matter of local control. The Con- 
stitution should not place restrictions on what towns can do 
when hiring a town judge. That is better left to the towns 
themselves and the legislature. The towns and the legislature 



should have flexibility to respond to changing conditions and 
as a result save money for the taxpayers of the state. It was 
probably unlikely that the drafters of the Constitution were 
even aware of the potential problem the present language 
could cause because sharing judges between towns was gener- 
ally unheard of at that time. Sharing judges between towns is 
a relatively recent phenomenon that came about because of 
the money saved and the ability to attract better qualified 
judges. This effort should be encouraged and not discouraged 
and thus your support for CI 9 is encouraged. 



Rebuttal of Argument Against 
Constitutional .\niendment No. 19 

The opponents to Constitutional Amendment 19 suggest 
that allowing towns to establish their own residency require- 
ments for town judges will result in the selection of judges 
who may be unfamiliar with the community. That will not be 
the case. 

First, a town judge will have to be hired by the elected 
members of the town council or elected by the community 
residents. .\ judge will have to be responsive to the electorate 
directly or indirectly. 

Second, the decision to share a judge with another commu- 
nity will be purch optional with the town. If a town wants to 
consolidate judicial services it can do so. It will not be re- 
quired to do so. 

Third, consolidation of judicial services or sharing judges 
between small communities will allow small communities to 
save money. Several communities already share the services 
of a single judge. Those communities have found it to be ben- 
eficial and cost effective and would like to continue to do so. 

The passage of Constitutional Amendment 19 will allow 
towns to make these decisions themselves based upon their 
own local judgment. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Joseph P. Ma- 
zurek. Helena; Representative Gary Spaeth; Joliet; and Larry 
D. Herman. Laurel. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 19 



D FOR allowing the legislature to establish specific residency requirements for 
judges other than supreme court justices, district court judges, and justices of the 
peace. 

D AGAINST allowing the legislature to establish specific residency requirements 
forjudges other than supreme court justices, district court judges, and justices of 
the peace. 



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. 19 appears on 
page 1 7. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 19 

This amendmenl would allow the legislature to determine, 
by law. the residency requirement forjudges who are not su- 
preme court or district court judges or justices of the peace. 
This means city and municipal court judges. 

The legislature could pass a law allowing a person to be a 
city or municipal court judge even though he does not reside 
in that city or town. Such a person will not know the prob- 
lems and affairs of the municipality as well as he would if he 
lived in the municipality. He may live far away from the mu- 
nicipality and know or care ver>' little about what happens in 
the municipality. The municipality will have to pay his travel 
expenses, which could add up to a considerable amount of 
money each year, especially if he lives far from the munici- 
pality. This would be an unnecessary expense and would 
waste taxpayers" money, because the travel expenses would 
not have to be paid if a resident of the muncipality were the 
judge. 

If the judge lives outside the municipality, especially if he 
lives far outside of it, it would be an inconvenience to police, 
parties to lawsuits, the municipality's residents, and others, 
because the judge would not be close by and may even be un- 
available when his signature is needed on such things as or- 
ders and search warrants. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 19 

The suggestion that adoption of Constitutional Amend- 
menl No. 1 9 would be beneficial to small cities and towns by 
allowing them to have the same person serve as judge of the 
city court of each city or town is just not correct. Space does 
not permit an analysis of the cost structure to be set forth 
here, but adoption of Constitutional Amendment No. 1 9 will 
not result in any significant savings to each city or town. 

Further, there will be a loss of local control over the city 
court in each city or town in that the smaller city or town will 
have less and less influence over the election or appointment 
of the judge who will preside over the city court. 

Also, if the judge of the city court need not be a resident, 
the quality of justice and the efficiency of the proceedings 
will tend to deteriorate because the judge will not be familiar 
with the problems and affairs of the area. 

The Constitution of 1 972 was not written so long ago that 
it is out of harmony with conditions today and needs chang- 
ing. In making a change, ask vourself What do I gain? What 
do I risk? 

If you want to keep local control over your municipal court 
and city court judges and over the cost of such courts. Vote 
"NO" to Constitutional Amendment No. 19. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Lawrence G. Sti- 
matz, Butte; Representative Dorothy Bradley. Bozeman; and 
Jennifer Bordy. Bozeman. 




CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 20 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT TO SUBMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MON- 
TANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V. SECTION 6, OF THE 
MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE THAT THE LEGISLA- 
TURE MEET NOT MORE THAN 1 00 LEGISLATIVE DAYS IN REGU- 
LAR SESSION DURING THE TERM FOR WHICH A MEMBER OF 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS ELECTED: TO REQUIRE 
THE LEGISLATURE TO APPORTION THE ALLOWABLE LEGISLA- 
TIVE DAYS BETWEEN SESSIONS; TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON 
THE BUSINESS THAT MAY BE CONDUCTED IN EACH SESSION; 
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 



AN AMENDMENT 

TO THE CONSTITUTION 

PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE 



Attorney GeneraPs Explanatorj' Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the 
Montana Constitution to require that the Legislature meet annually for no 
more than 1 00 legislative days during a two-year period. No regular session 
could e.xceed 60 legislative days. In odd-numbered years only legislation 
relating to revenue or appropriations could be considered, and in even- 
numbered years only legislation not relating to revenue or appropriations 
could be considered. Special sessions could still be convened. 



Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 20 

In the current era of derequlalion and new federalism. 
Stales have been forced to expand their roles in job creation, 
health care, prison reform and education. While there is 
clearly no need for a full-time legislature in Montana, there is 
a need to give the people of Montana a more timely and re- 
sponsive method of law-making that meets the increased de- 
mands placed upon the Legislature. 

Special sessions are not the answer to the new demands 
since they do not allow legislators enough time to understand 
a major policy issue nor do they allow the public an effective 
way to be involved in policy making and they are expensive. 
From 1981 to 1987, the Legislature of Montana met in spe- 
cial session for 44 days at a cost of approximately $ 1 .500,000. 
The 1985 Legislature, including special sessions, met 109 
days as opposed to the scheduled 90 days. 

This Constitutional amendment is the answer. By splitting 
our current session into two separate budget and general ses- 
sions, we will set up a better system to concentrate the Legis- 
latures work. Most importantly, these sessions will adjorn 
about the end of February. The current 90 day session gener- 
ally winds up the last week in .'Kpril. 4 months from the date 
of convening! Legislators realized the need for a change from 
the current legislative process. During the 1987 session over 
two-thirds of the legislators voted for this amendment. 

Unlike the federal government, the Montana Legislature is 
wisely mandated from deficit spending. The Montana Legis- 
lature cannot meet ever\ 2 years and balance a 2 billion dol- 
lar budget. The current system breeds crisis management, 
legislator burn-out and stifles public participation. In this sit- 
uation major legislation is often delayed until the final days 
of the session, then pushed through with little debate or scru- 
tiny. The end result are laws passed for Montana that arc fre- 
quently drafted under pressure, considered in haste and of- 
ten passed in frustration. 

Passage of this Amendment will improve the Legislature 



by: 
a. 



Requiring yearly sessions, limited to 100 days over two 

years. 

Allow even-year sessions of 60 da>s to consider general 

legislation nin relating to budget matters; and odd-year 

sessions of 40 days to consider otlli: budget matters. 

Prohibit a bill tabled in one session from being carried 

over to the next years session. 



Yearly sessions will accomplish the following: 

a. Result in more efficient management of the public's 
business. 

b. Shorter sessions will allow more people to run for and 
serve in the Legislature. The majority of working people 
in Montana cannot afford to be away from their work- 
places for 4 consecutive months. 

c. .Mlow the Legislature to be more responsive to real 
emergencies which have traditionally led to special ses- 
sions. 

d. With a stricter and controlled agenda, better public par- 
ticipation will result. 

e. Spreading out the work-load will avoid peaks and burn- 
outs and an improvement in the quality of laws drafted. 

Yearly sessions will improve the performance of govern- 
ment and thus the well-being of our State. 



Rebuttal of .\rgument .\gainst 
Constitutional .\mendment No. 20 

The fallacy with the opponents argument is that this con- 
stitutional amendment does not call for Annual Sessions, but 
splits our current session into separate Budget and General 
sessions. Budget sessions in odd numbered years and Gen- 
eral sessions in e\en numbered years. So. therefore we refer 
to this as the Split Sessions Proposal. This proposal allows the 
legislature to bring critical budget issues into a General ses- 
sion and vice versa. This Split Session proposal also prohibits 
the "carry over" of a bill from one session to the other. This 
"carrv over" was the main problem with the annual sessions 
in the 70"s. 

It would be nice if the Legislature met for one day everv' 10 
years, but you know that's not possible. So let's set up a Legis- 
lative process that works better for Montana. One that re- 
quires the Legislature to meet each year; limits the Legisla- 
ture to separate Budget and General Sessions; and provides 
for much shorter sessions so more Montanans can partici- 
pate. 

Please vote FOR Constitutional Amendment 20. 



These Arguments Prepared by; Senator R. J. "Dick" Pin- 
soneaull. St. Ignatius: Representative Fred Thomas. Stevens- 
\ille;and Senator Tom Keating. Billings. 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 20 

FISCAL NOTE 

PASSAGE OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE AN 
ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE OF $462,000 FOR THE TWO- 
YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 199L 

D FOR requiring the legislature to meet each year, with limitations on legislative 
days and business to be conducted. 

D AGAINST requiring the legislature to meet each year, with limitations on legisla- 
tive days and business to be conducted. 

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. 20 appears on 
pages 17 and 18. 



Argument Against 
Constitutional Amendment No. 20 

In 1973 the Montana Legislature switched to annual ses- 
sions. Two years later they returned to the biennial schedule. 

The voters have expressed their wishes on the subject of 
annual sessions in the past, and the message they gave us was 
loud and clear, "less legislative involvement and less spend- 
ing". 

Valid arguments opposing annual legislative sessions are: 

• The legislature does not need to meet annually in order 
to complete its work in an orderly manner. Establishing 
a procedure to screen bills in order to reduce the number 
considered, and allowing more time for review of bills in 
order to prevent errors will improve the legislative proc- 
ess. 

• A large number of the issues proposed for special ses- 
sions are raised in response to federal mandates, which 
by their very nature are erratic and nearly impossible to 
predict. 

• In 1975 there was a special session of the legislature in 
spite of annual sessions being in place. 

• Montana's lone experience with annual sessions proved 
that neither annual session was able to finish its business 
within the prescribed 60 day limit. 

• It will be more costly to have annual sessions. Annual 
sessions will necessitate additional staff and support plus 
create more legislative days. Clearly, a self defeating step 
during these times of purported austerity and continuing 
revenue shortfalls. 

• Annual sessions will serve to replace our "citizen legisla- 
tors" with "professional legislators" and thus eliminate 
from puh)lic service many qualified persons who cannot 
afford the lengthy absences required. 

• Upon examination, it appears that annual legislative ses- 
sions are more aptly suited for densely populated states 
with large urban areas, rather than sparsely populated, 
agricultural states, such as Montana. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Constitutional Amendment No. 20 

The subject amendment is perhaps the most vague and 
ambiguous amendment ever put before the voters of Mon- 
tana. 

The proponents of C-20 state that passage will improve the 
legislature by: 

a. Requiring yearly sessions, limited to 100 days every 
two years. FACT: In addition, the amendment reads, "Any 
legislature may increase the limit on the length of any subse- 
quent session." A statement which clearly gives the legisla- 
ture "carte blanche" to create subsequent annual sessions of 
any length. 

b. Allow even-year sessions of 60 days to consider general 
legislation not relating to budget matters: and odd-year ses- 
sions of 40 days to consider only budget matters. FACT: In 
addition, the amendment states specifically, "The legislature 
may adopt rules permitting consideration of legislation unre- 
lated to the subject limitation of that session." Clearly, the 
inclusion of the forgoing gives the legislature broad powers to 
consider just about anything a simple majority desires. 

It should be obvious to the careful reader of C-20 that it is 
clearly a "blank check" for the legislature to create a legisla- 
tive Frankenstein liar exceeding the proponents claims. 

Vote against C-20. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Darryl Meyer, 
Great Falls; Representative Paul G. Pistoria, Great Falls; and 
Roger Porter, Great Falls. 




LEGISLATIVE 
REFERENDUM 
NO. 106 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AN ACT CONTINUING THE FUNDING OF THE MONTANA 
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM BY A LEVY OF NOT TO EXCEED 6 
MILLS ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY EACH YEAR FOR 10 
YEARS; PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUB- 
MITTED TO THE ELECTORS OF MONTANA: AMENDING 
SECTION 20-25-423, MCA; AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE 
DATES. 



A LAW PROPOSED 
BY THE LEGISLATURE 



Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would au- 
thorize the Legislature to continue the statewide six-mill lev7 for 
funding the university system through 1999. Existing law provides 
for the six-mill levy through 1 989. 



Argument For 
Legislative Referendum No. 106 

Committee to write the argument for Legislative Referen- 
dum No. 106 did not file a statement by the statutory dead- 



10 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 

CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 106 

FISCAL NOTE 

PASSAGE OF THIS REFERENDUM WILL PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A 
PROPERTY TAX LEVY NOT TO EXCEED 6 MILLS AND WILL GENERATE APPROXI- 
MATELY $25,224,000 IN REVENUE DURING THE 1990-1991 BIENNIUM. 

D FOR giving the legislature authority to levy up to 6 mills for the support of the Montana 
university system. 

n AGAINST giving the legislature authority to levy up to 6 mills for the support of the Montana 
university system. 

NOTE: The ballot title and explanatory statement was written by the Attorney General as required by state law. The 
complete text of Legislative Referendum No. 1 06 appears on page 1 8. 



Argument Against 
Legislative Referendum No. 106 

Committee to write the argument against Legislative Ref- 
erendum No. 106 did not file a statement by the statutory 
deadline. 



11 




INITIATIVE 
NO. 110 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 
AND 

Attorney General's Explanatory Statement 

THIS INITIATIVE WOULD REPEAL THE MONTANA SEAT- 
BELT USE ACT. THE MONTANA SEATBELT USE ACT RE- 
QUIRES THE OCCUPANTS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TO 
WEAR A FASTENED SEAT BELT. 



A LAW PROPOSED 
BY INITIATIVE PETITION 



Argument For 
Initiative No. 110 

The essence of Dictatorship is that Government knows 
better than people, what is good for them. 

The essence of Democracy is that people are capable of 
making their own decisions and accepting the consequences 
of those decisions. 

Force and coercion in a Democracy are to be used against 
criminals, not law-abiding citizens. 

The Montana Seatbelt law is criminal in that it puts inno- 
cent people at risk of death and bodily injury by forcing them 
to fasten the rear lap belts which are notorious killers and 
maimers. 

On July 28th, 1986, the National Traffic Safety Board re- 
leased a study of the performance of lap-only belts which are 
used in the rear seats of practically all automobiles. They 
stated. "In many cases the lap belts induced severe to fatal 
injuries that probably would not have occurred if the lap belts 
had not been worn." 

In frontal collisions lap belts injure in direct proportion to 
how hard you hit. because the human body can't stand the 
terrific stress of being thrown against a narrow strap in the 
mid-section. They rupture bladders and kidneys; break pel- 
vises and spines. 

The Montana Seatbelt Law makes the rear seat a SUICIDE 
SEAT! 

The lap and shoulder belt used in front seats is not the 
great salvation it is reputed to be. It can kill! People have 
been saved from the worst kind of death by being able to get 
out quickly. Instances such as fire and water. Cars and pick- 
ups have rolled, crushing the roof down to the seat, and driv- 
ers have fallen to the floor and escaped serious injury. They 
have avoided injury by moving aside quickly in some in- 
stances, which could not be done with a restricting belt. 
Many occupants of vehicles have hung upside down for a per- 
iod of time, unable to get loose because seatbelts are very dif- 
ficult to release with the weight of a body on them. Many of 
these suffered brain damage. 

Why aren't seatbelts required in Schoolbuses, if this law is 
a guarantee of safety? 

The reason for the push for seatbelt laws is not safety. 
Many of us have driven hundreds of thousands of miles 
safely without seatbelts fastened. 

The argument is advanced that we must all wear the seat- 
belt because people getting hurt in autos become a burden on 
society and increase taxes for everyone. If that is true, then 
we should forbid smoking and drinking, both of which pose a 



great burden on taxpayers. What about unwed mothers? Isn't 
that a great burden on taxpayers? Why not a law against it? 
Why the seatbelt law and not these others laws? Only because 
Government wants us to be constantly aware that it is Gov- 
ernment that knows best. We, as individuals know nothing, 
and must be told — yes forced — to do what Government de- 
crees for us. Is it any different in Russia? 

A vote for Initiative 110 is a vote for freedom! 

A vote against Initiative 1 10 is a vote for Dictatorship! 



Rebuttal of Argument .\gainst 
Initiative No. 110 

Seatbelt law advocates say that forcing citizens to fasten 
seatbelts will save lives. They cannot show that to be true, be- 
cause that totalitarian form of regimentation is too new here, 
but in Europe, where it has been in use long enough to pro- 
vide some HONEST statistics, the opposite is shown. 

London's University College professor John .Adams in his 
book "Risk and Freedom", the record of Safety Regulation 
(Great Britain: Transport Publishing Project. 1985) found 
that Traffic deaths were decreasing more rapidly in Coun- 
tries that didn't have seatbelt laws, than those that did. 

The records of the Montana Highway Patrol show a steady 
decrease in Highway fatalities in the last ten years. 

Those who would make our decisions for us claim that this 
form of Dictatorship will save the taxpayers money. Are we 
ready to trade the little freedom of Choice we still have, for 
such a consideration? Can we not all detect the headlong rush 
toward bigger Government that is contemptuous of the rights 
and feelings of individuals? 

There are now strong repeal movements in every State that 
has a seatbelt law. Over a million signatures have been col- 
lected against that law in North Carolina, Iowa. Massachu- 
setts and Oregon. 

Let us see beyond the poor camouflage to the ulterior mo- 
tive. Big Government wants to get bigger. The ultimate is 
Dictatorship. 

The statement that a statewide Poll was taken on the seat- 
bell law in Montana has no substantiation and is obviously 
false. 

Vote for Initiative 1 10. 



These .Arguments Prepared by: Jay McKean, Roberts; 
Morris O. Mancoronal. Jr., Conrad: and Dan Burdick, Hel- 
ena. 



12 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 
CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 110 

FISCAL NOTE 

THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE WOULD REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 
USE OF SEATBELTS BY OCCUPANTS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE. THE ELIMINA- 
TION OF THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO USE SEATBELTS WOULD RESULT 
IN A DECREASE OF THIS REVENUE BY $39,000 IN FY 1989 AND $134,000 IN 
THE 1990-91 BIENNIUM. 

D FOR repealing the Montana Seatbelt Use Act. 

D AGAINST repealing the Montana Seatbelt Use Act. 

NOTE: The ballot title and explanatory statement was written by the Attorney General as required by 
state law. The complete text of Initiative No. 1 1 appears on pages 1 8 and 1 9. 



Argument Against 
Initiative No. 110 

VOTE NO on Initiative 110. Vote against the repeal of 
Montana's safety belt use law. Safety belt use laws requiring 
people to buckle-up, help save lives and prevent catastrophic 
injuries more than voluntary buckling-up. 

Safety belt use laws do make a difference. Montana's De- 
partment of Justice has published statistics clearly demon- 
strating that safety belt usage in Montana increased from 
29% to over 60% after the enactment of the safely belt use 
law. Montana is not alone. Thirty-one other states now have 
similar laws. Usage in those states averages 52% compared to 
27% in the states with no safety belt use laws. 

Increased safety belt usage results in fewer automobile fa- 
talities and decreases brain stem injuries, paralysis, and facial 
and body disfigurement caused by accidents. An unre- 
strained vehicle occupant is five times more likely to be killed 
in a car crash than an occupant who is buckled-up. Mon- 
tana's Department of Justice estimates that 53 lives will be 
saved and 840 injuries prevented annually with Montana's 
current safety belt use rate of 60%. 

If an occupant is not wearing a safety belt during a crash, 
occupants other than that individual will be affected. In 
crashes with more than one occupant in a vehicle, 22% of the 
injuries are caused by collisions of the unbuckled occupants. 

Safety belt use laws save taxpayer dollars. For example, the 
lifetime costs for the care of a severely brain damaged young 
adult costs as much as $4.5 million dollars. Montana's De- 
partment of Justice estimates that at our 60% use rate. Mon- 
tana taxpayers are saving $42 million annually in medical 
costs. Workers' Compensation, and loss of future earnings. 
Repeal of our safety belt use law will result in more taxpayer 
dollars going to pay these increased economic costs. These 
costs in no way reflect the severe emotional and financial im- 
pacts that death and catastrophic injury have on family and 
friends. 

A safety belt use law does not violate our constitutional 
rights. Just as Montana and other states can legally require 
driver licensure and testing, stopping at stop signs and red 
lights, Montana can also require its motorists to buckle-up. 

Driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right protected 
by the Constitution like freedom of speech, religion, and the 
press. As Americans, we are born with those rights. We are 
not born with the right to drive — we earn it. 

In a recent statewide poll, over two-thirds of Montana citi- 
zens voiced their support for our safety belt use law. Many 
organizations, such as the Montana Parent/Teacher Associa- 



tion, the Montana Hospital Association, the Montana Exten- 
sion Homemakers' Association, and the Montana Medical 
Association, support Montana's safety belt use law and op- 
pose Initiative 1 lO. 

Montana's safety belt use law does make a difference. Help 
prevent needless pain, suffering, and death caused by auto- 
mobile crashes. Your vote does make a difference. VOTE 
NO on Initiative 110. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Initiative No. 110 

Democracy does not demand a lawless society. In a free 
society the citizens can legislate to protect themselves, their 
children and fellow citizens. 

Lawmakers do and are obligated to pass laws that benefit 
the health and welfare of society. As an example, there are 
laws requiring drinking water to be safe, housing to meet cer- 
tain minimum standards for safety, and numerous traffic reg- 
ulations. 

Safety belt laws are constitutional. In Missoula, a Distnct 
Court recently ruled that Montana's Safety Belt Law was le- 
gal. Other states have similar laws. In fact, the U.S. Supreme 
Court has refused the opportunity to overthrow other states' 
Safety Belt Laws. . 

Contrary to the proponent's unfounded assertions. Safety 
Belt Laws do save lives. Buckling-up has prevented people 
from being thrown from vehicles and ultimately crushed. Oc- 
cupants are 25 times more likely to be killed in a crash when 
ejected from the vehicle. 

Proponents of Initiative 1 lOneglected to point out that the 
National Transportation Safety Board did not recommend 
against using lap belts. In fact, many studies have proven that 
a person riding in the rear seat of a motor vehicle has a 32- 
36% better chance of avoiding serious injury or death by 
wearing a lap beh. National experts estimate that in 1 987. lap 
belts in rear seats saved 200 lives and prevented 1 500 serious 
injuries. . . 

Vote to continue saving lives and preventing injunes. Yoie 
No on Inititiative 1 10 to keep Montana's Safety Belt Law. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Senator Mike Halligan, 
Missoula; Mona Jamison, Helena; John L. Delano, Helena; 
Representative Ron Miller. Great Falls; and Larry Tobiason. 
Helena. 



13 




INITIATIVE 
NO. 113 



A LAW PROPOSED 
BY INITIATIVE PETITION 



OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE 

AND 

Attorney General's Explanatorj Statement 

THIS INITIATIVE WOULD ESTABLISH A SYSTEM FOR RE- 
FUNDABLE DEPOSITS ON ALL GLASS, METAL. OR PLASTIC 
BEVERAGE CONTAINERS SOLD IN MONTANA. THE CON- 
TAINERS WOULD HAVE A REFUND VALUE OF AT LEAST 
FIVE CENTS. UPON PURCHASE OF A BEVER.A.GE, CON- 
SUMERS WOULD P.AY A DEPOSIT. RETAILERS AND RE- 
DEMPTION CENTERS WOULD THEN PAY CONSUMERS 
THE REFUND VALUE UPON RETURN OF CONTAINERS. 
DISTRIBUTORS WOULD PAY RETAILERS OR REDEMP- 
TION CENTERS THE REFUND VALUE AND HANDLING 
COSTS. THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES WOULD ENFORCE THE PRO- 
VISIONS. EXCEPT THE PROVISION REGARDING DISTRIB- 
UTORS. VIOL.-\TORS. EXCEPT FOR DISTRIBUTORS, 
COULD BE FINED OR CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR. 



Argument For 
Initiative No. 113 

Many excellent reasons exist for supporting I- II 3. the 
Montana Litter Control and Recycling Act. Here are just four 
with which you, as Montanans. should be concerned: 

1. I-l 13 will greatly reduce litter in Montana. Our state 
government budgeted over a half million dollars in the cur- 
rent biennium to combat litter. Studies in states with similar 
laws have found that litter was cut by at least half following 
passage of can and bottle bills. Montanans are justifiably 
proud of the natural beauty of our state, and I- 1 1 3 is a step to 
keep it beautiful by eliminating future container litter. 

2. 1-113 encourages recycling by increasing the financial 
incentive. For every can and bottle returned, you receive at 
least a nickel. This system makes those who Utter pay for 
every beverage container they toss and decreases the amount 
of taxes spent on litter clean-up. 

3. I-1 13 creates jobs for Montanans. An estimated 450 
jobs in retailing, distributing, and recycling w ill be created. In 
these times of economic difficulty. Montana cannot afford to 
say no to 450 jobs. 

4. I-l 1 3 promotes conservative use of resources. Recycled 
material uses 60% less energy to produce new containers. 
Most of this savings is in water and fuel. Montanans under- 
stand the precious nature of water, and with talk of a "green- 
house effect," we all want to burn less fuel. 1-113 guarantees 
lower water and fuel consumption. 

The idea of returnable beverage containers is not new — 
many of us remember a lime when pop and beer bottles were 
refillable and had a deposit. Within the past 20 years, we have 
seen the demise of refiUables and the advent of non- 
returnables. Without 1-113. the next 20 years will see a tre- 
mendous increase in container litter, 

I-l I 3 will work. The experience of nine other states with 
can and bottle bills is the most important guide as to the suc- 
cess we can expect in Montana. Oregon Governor Neil 
Goldschmidt's statement is typical of the praise the gover- 
nors of these states have for such laws: "I am a very strong 
supporter of the Oregon bottle bill. It has been a benefit to 
both Oregon's economy and environment." 

Other states have not repealed their laws because people 
like the results. Montanans can share in those results by vot- 
ing yes for 1-113 on November 8. The only other alternative 
to I- 1 1 3 is increased litter. 



14 



Rebuttal of Argument Against 
Initiative No. 113 

I-l 1 3 opponents make a series of undocumented, inaccu- 
rate claims. We respond as follows: 

1. Litter will decrease . In 1987. Iowa Governor Terry 
Bransiad noted Iowa's bottle bill has caused "a 79% decrease 
in the amount of bottles and cans littering Iowa's roadsides." 
Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis cites a "thirty- 
five per cent reduction of litter on highways." Michigan Gov- 
ernor James Blanchard adds that the Michigan bottle bill 
caused a "41% decrease in roadside litter." The National 
Wildlife Federation has cited that nationally bottle bills have 
reduced litter 40-60%. 

2. The recycling industry will not be harmed . "Oregon re- 
cycling programs are nourishing" wrote Oregon Governor 
Neil Goldschmidt. 

3. Beverage prices will not ris e. Vermont Governor Ma- 
deline Kunin states that prices in Vermont after the bottle 
bill's passage "have been comparable with regional prices," 
adding that "retailers who opposed the mandatory deposit 
system have become proponents of the Act." 

4. Recycling rales will increase . Our studies show that alu- 
minum containers are recycled in Montana at no more than 
62% and throwaway glass containers at less than 9%. In con- 
trast, bottle bill stales recycle all containers at 90% or better. 
And so each opponent argument goes. I- 1 1 3 is an effective, 
inexpensive law that reduces litter and disposable waste 
while conserving energy and natural resources. Yet the con- 
tainer manufacturers and distributors who make money sell- 
ing throwaway containers plan to spend hundred of thou- 
sands of dollars on media propaganda. Don't be fooled! 
Listen to the Governors of all nine states which have bottle 
bills. Vote "ves" on I-l 13. 



These Arguments Prepared by: Cindy Staley. Helena: Jon- 
athan Motl, Helena: and Representative Dorothy Bradley, 
Bozeman, 



HOW THE ISSUE WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT: 

INITIATIVE NO. 113 

FISCAL NOTE 

PASSAGE OF THIS INITIATIVE WOULD RESULT IN ADMINISTR.ATIVE EXPENDI- 
TURES OF APPROXIMATELY $185,000 FOR THE 1990-91 BIENNIUM. SOME EXPENDI- 
TURES MAY BE OFFSET BY FINES, PENALTIES, OR REDUCED LITTER COLLECTION 
COSTS UNDER THIS INITIATIVE. STATE BEER EXCISE TAX REVENUE COULD DE- 
CREASE, IF SALES DECREASE UPON PASSAGE OF THIS INITIATIVE. 

n FOR requiring refundable deposits on all beverage containers sold in Montana. 

D AGAINST requiring refundable deposits on all beverage containers sold in Montana. 

NOTE: The ballot title and explanatory statement was written by the Attorney General as required by state law. 
The complete text of Initiative No. 113 appears on pages 19-21. 



Argument Against 
Initiative No. 113 

At first glance. Initiative 1 1 3 seems to be a simple solution 
to the problem of unsightly litter. 1-113 would force con- 
sumers to pay a five-cent deposit on each soft drink and beer 
container, which could be refunded if taken back to a store 
where the product is sold. 

But a closer examination of this "can and bottle bill" 
clearlv shows it is not only unnecessary, ineffective and ex- 
pensive, but could actually destroy Montana's thriving recy- 
cling industry. 

The forced deposit law is really a hidden sales tax: a mea- 
sure which would dramatically increase the prices of beer and 
soft drinks to Montana consumers by $ 1 3 million a year. Ex- 
perience in other forced deposit states shows the price of a 
six-pack of beer would increase by 25 cents and soft drinks by 
20 cents — in addition to the 30-cent deposit. 

The forced deposit law would disrupt the beverage distri- 
bution system, turnmg Montana stores into garbage collec- 
tion centers and beverage distributors into trash haulers. 
These increased costs — in addition to a slate-imposed one- 
cent per container handling fee — would be passed on to the 
consumer. 

Proponents claim that beverage containers make up a ma- 
jority of roadside litter. Montana citizens know better. Bev- 
erage containers are a small fraction of litter, and those few 
cans that are littered are quickly picked up by mdividuals 
who make a profit recycling them. 

1-113 proponents deceptively call it the "Litter Control 
and Recycling Act". 1-113 does not even mention litter con- 
trol or recycling. In fact, 1-113 would cripple Montana's 
thriving recycling industry. If I-l 1 3 is so good for recycling, 
why are Montana recyclers bitterly opposed to its passage? 

Montana already has one of the highest recycling rates in 
the nation, with nearly 80 percent of all aluminum cans being 
recycled. More than 70 percent of all beverage containers in 
the state are now being recycled, without the expense, incon- 
venience, and government instrusion of a forced deposit law. 

1-113 would force recyclers out of business because the 
most profitable materials would go back to retailers, not to 
the recycler. With the loss of beverage containers, the smaller 
recycler could no longer afford to accept glass, plastic, news- 
papers, cardboard or other items. Recycling of these materi- 
als would virtually cease. Real recycling jobs would be lost. 



Last year, Montana recyclers paid Montana citizens $2 
million in new money for recycling. 1-113 would cost Mon- 
tana citizens more than $ 1 3 million a year. 

There is a better way. Community involvement programs 
like the successful Bright n" Beautiful Committee of Yellow- 
stone County in Billings, provide comprehensive solutions 
through neighborhood clean-ups, anti-littering education 
and increased recycling. 

It's unfair to force everyone to pay for the few who litter! 
Vote against 1-113. 



Rebuttal of Argument For 
Initiative No. 113 

Do you really want to pay fifty to sixty cents more a six- 
pack for the pleasure of standing in a line in the grocery store 
waiting to get thirty cents of your money back for the emp- 
ties? Is it worth the hassle, when you stop to think that almost 
all the roadside litter, all the paper and plastic items, tire 
pieces, etc., will still be out there? Is it worth the hassle, when 
you stop to think that Montana's voluntary recycling system 
recycles aluminum cans at almost the same rate as New 
York's forced deposit system? 

We Montanans are proud of our scenery; we also value a 
system that runs with more voluntary cooperation and less 
government dictation than people back east have to put up 
with. The last thing we need is another bureau of state gov- 
ernment, which this initiative would create, to tell us to do 
what we're already doing quite well. 

Finally, this is not a fair law. It makes everyone pay more 
for the few who litter and it singles out one small part of the 
litter problem while leaving the rest untouched. It doesn't 
create jobs — it just moves them from the recycling centers to 
the groceries and the distributors. 



These Arguments Prepared by; Douglas G. Stewart. Mis- 
soula; Roger Tippy, Helena; Mona Jamison, Helena; Repre- 
sentative Bud Campbell, Deer Lodge; and Forrest Johnston, 
Billings. 



15 



SECRETARY OF STATE'S NOTE: THE FOLLOWING MA- 
TERLVL INCLUDES THE COMPLETE TEXT OF EACH IS- 
SUE INCLUDING DELETED (INTERLINED) LANGUAGE 
AND NEW (UNDERLINED) LANGUAGE AS IT WTLL AF- 
FECT THE CONSTTTUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE OF 
MONTANA. 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 18 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 
AMENDMENT NO. 17 



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

Section 1. Article VIII, section 1 3, of The Constitution of 
the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 13. Investinent of public funds. (1) The legisla- 
ture shall provide for a unified investment program for 
public funds and provide rules therefore, including supervi- 
sion of investment of surplus funds of all counties, cities, 
towns, and other local governmental entities. Each fund 
forming a part of the unified investment program shall be 
separately identified. Except for monies contributed to re - 
tirement funds, no public funds shall be invested in private 
corporate capital stock. The investment program shall be 
audited at least annually and a report thereof submitted to 
the governor and legislature. 

(2) The public school fund and the permanent funds of 
the Montana university system and all other state institu - 
tions of learning shall be safely and conser^'ativcly invested 
tftf 

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

(b) Bonds of the United States or other securities fully 
guaranteed as to principa l and interest by the United States. 
©r 

(c) Such other safe investments bearing a fixed rate of in - 
terest as may be prov i ded by law. The unified investment 
program shall be administered as provided by law. " 

Section 2. Effective dale. If approved by the electorate, 
this amendment is effective January 1. 1989. 

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the electors of Montana at the general 
election to be held November 8. 1988. by printing on the 
ballot the full title of this act and the following: 

D FOR removing constraints on investment of public 
funds and allowing investment as authorized by the leg- 
islature. 

□ AGAINST removing constraints on investment of 
public funds and allowing investment as authorized by 
the legislature. 



WHEREAS, the Legislature historically has prescribed 
the public policy governing the provisions of economic as- 
sistance and social and rehabilitation services to those in 
need; and 

WHEREAS, the Legislature is the appropriate body of 
state government to determine the needs of its residents; 
and 

WHEREAS, the Montana Supreme Court, in a recent 
decision, determined that the Montana Constitution re- 
quires that statutes relating to such assistance and services 
are reviewable under a heightened scrutiny test; and 

WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is in the public 
interest to restore to the Legislature the power to prescribe 
the provision of economic assistance and social and reha- 
bilitation services to those in need, subject to review under 
the rational basis test. 

THEREFORE, it is the intent of the Legislature to refer 
this constitutional amendment to the people of the state in 
order to restore the historical power of the Legislature to set 
eligibility level criteria for programs and services, as well as 
for the duration and level of benefits and services relating to 
economic assistance and social and rehabilitation services. 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE 
STATE OF MONTANA: 

Section 1. Article XII, section 3, of The Constitution of 
the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 3. Institutions and assistance. ( 1 ) The state shall 
establish and support institutions and facilities as the pub- 
lic good may require, including homes which may be neces- 
sary and desirable for the care of veterans. 

(2) Persons committed to any such institutions shall re- 
tain all rights except those necessarily suspended as a condi- 
tion of commitment. Suspended rights are restored upon 
termination of the state's responsibility. 

(3) The legislature shaH may provide such economic as- 
sistance and social and rehabilitative services as may be 
necessary' for those inhabitants who. by reason of age. infir- 
mities, or misfortune, may have need for the aid of society 
are determined by the legislature to be in need . 

(4) The legislature may set eligibility criteria for pro- 
grams and services, as well as for the duration and level of 
benefits and senices. " 

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, 
this amendment is effective January 1, 1989. 

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the electors of Montana at the general 



16 



election to be held November 8, 1 988, by printing on the 
ballot the full title of this act and the following: 

D FOR allowing the legislature greater discretion to de- 
termine the eligibility, duration, and level of economic 
assistance and social services to those in need. 

D AGAINST allowing the legislature greater discretion to 
determine the eligibility, duration, and level of eco- 
nomic assistance and social services to those in need. 



election to be held November 8, 1988, by printing on the 
ballot the full title of this act and the following: 

D FOR allowing the legislature to establish specific resi- 
dency requirements for judges other than supreme 
court justices, district court judges, and justices of the 
peace. 

D AGAINST allowing the legislature to establish specific 
residency requirements forjudges other than supreme 
court justices, district court judges, and justices of the 
peace. 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 

AMENDMENT NO. 19 




Complete Text of 
CONSTITUTIONAL 

AMENDMENT NO. 20 



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

Section 1. Article VII, section 9, of The Constitution of 
the State of Montana is amended to read: 

"Section 9. Qualifications. (1) A citizen of the United 
States who has resided in the state two years immediately 
before taking office is eligible to the office of supreme court 
justice or district court judge if admitted to the practice of 
law in Montana for at least five years prior to the date of 
appointment or election. Qualifications and methods of se- 
lection of judges of other courts shall be provided by law. 

(2) No supreme court justice or district court judge shall 
solicit or receive compensation in any form whatever on ac- 
count of his office, except salary and actual necessary travel 
expense. 

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no 
supreme court justice or district court judge shall practice 
law during his term of office, engage in any other employ- 
ment for which salary or fee is paid, or hold office in a polit- 
ical party. 

(4) Supreme court justices shall reside within the state. 
Every other judge shall reside during During his term of of- 
fice, a district court judge shall reside in the district; and a 
justice of the peace shall reside in the county , township, pre - 
cinct, city or town in which he is elected or appointed. The 
residency requirement for every other judge must be pro- 
vided by law. " 

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, 
this amendment is effective July 1 , 1 989. 

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the electors of Montana at the general 



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

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

"Section 6. Sessions. The legislature shall meet each odd 
numbered year in regular session of not more than 90 legis - 
lative days be a continuous body for 2-vear periods, begin- 
ning when the newly elected members take office as may be 
determined by the legislature . The legislature shall meet 
once a year in regular session. The legislature may not meet 
in regular sessions more than 1 00 legislative days during the 
term for which members of the house of rep resentatives are 
elected. The legislature shall limit by law th e len gth of each 
regular session. The length of a regular session so estab- 
lished may not exceed 60 legislative davs. The session in 
even-numbered vears must be limited to consideration of 
general legislation not relating to revenue or appropria- 
tions. The session in odd-numbered years must be limited 
to consideration of legislation relating to revenue or app ro- 
priations. No bill introduced in one session may be carried 
over to any other session of that legislature . The legislature 
may adopt rules permitting consideration of legislation un- 
related to the subject limitations of that session. Any legisla- 
ture may increase the limit on the length of any subsequent 
session. The legislature may be convened in special sessions 
by the governor or at the written request of a majority of the 
members." 

Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the electorate, 
this amendment is effective January 1 , 1 99 1 . 



17 



Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment 
shall be submitted to the electors of Montana at the general 
election to be held November 8, 1988, by printing on the 
ballot the full title of this act and the following: 

D FOR requiring the legislature to meet each year, with 
limitations on legislative days and business to be con- 
ducted. 

D AGAINST requiring the legislature to meet each year, 
with limitations on legislative days and business to be 
conducted. 



Complete Text of 
LEGISLATIVE 
REFERENDUM NO. 106 




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

Section 1. Section 20-25-423, MCA, is amended to 
read: 

"20-25-423. State tax levy — support of public educa- 
tion institutions. The legislature shall levy a property tax 
of not more than 6 mills on the taxable value of all real 
and personal property each year for 10 years beginning 
with the year 1979 1989 . .All revenue from this property 
tax levy shall be appropriated for the support, mainte- 
nance, and improvement of the Montana university sys- 
tem and other public educational institutions subject to 
board of regents' supervision . 

Section 2. Submission to electorate. The question of 
whether section 1 of this act will become effective shall be 
submitted to the electors of Montana at the general elec- 
tion to be held November 8, 1 988, by printing on the bal- 
lot the full title of this act and the following: 

D FOR giving the legislature authority to levy up to 6 
mills for the support of the Montana university sys- 
tem. 

D AGAINST giving the legislature authority to levy up 
to 6 mills for the support of the Montana university 
system. 

Section 3. Effective dates. (1) If approved by the elec- 
torate, section 1 ofthis act is effective January 1. 1989. 

(2) Section 2 and this section are effective on passage 
and approval. 




Complete Text of 
INITIATIVE NO. 1 10 



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

Section 1. Repealer. Sections 61-13-101 thru 61-13- 
106 MCA are repealed. 

Section 2. Effective Date. This Act is effective upon 
approval by the electorate. 

SECRETARY OF STATE'S NOTE: FOR PUR- 
POSES OF THIS PAMPHLET THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE SETS FORTH BELOW THE SECTIONS 
THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE REPEALED: 

61-13-lOL Short title. This part may be cited as the 
"Montana Seatbelt Use Act". 

61-13-102. Definitions. As used in this part, the follow- 
ing definitions apply: 

( 1 ) "Department" means the department of justice. 

(2) "Highway" means the entire width between the 
boundary lines of each publicly maintained way when 
any part thereof is open to public use for vehicular travel. 

(3) "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle propelled by its 
own power and designed primarily to transport persons 
or property upon the highways of the state. 

(4) "Occupants" means the driver and passengers in a 
motor vehicle. 

(5) "Seatbelt" means a system using a lap belt, a shoul- 
der belt, or other belt or combination of belts installed in 
a motor vehicle to restrain occupants, which system con- 
forms to federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

61-13-103. Seatbelt use required — exceptions. { 1 ) No 
driver may operate a motor vehicle upon a highway of the 
state of Montana unless each occupant of a designated 
seating position is wearing a properly adjusted and fas- 
tened seatbelt. 

(2) The provisions ofthis section do not apply to: 

(a) an occupant of a motor vehicle who possesses a 
written statement from a licensed physician that he is un- 
able to wear a seatbelt for medical reasons; 

(b) an occupant of a motor vehicle in which all seat- 
belts are being used by other occupants; 

(c) an operator of a motorcycle as defined in 6 1 - 1 - 1 05 
or a motor-driven cycle as defined in 6 1 - 1 - 1 06; 

(d) an occupant of a vehicle licensed as special mobile 
equipment as defined in 6 1 - 1 - 1 04; 

(e) children subject to the provisions of 6 1 -9-420; or 
(0 an occupant who makes frequent stops with a motor 

vehicle in his official job duties and who may be ex- 
empted by the department. 

(3) The department may adopt rules to implement sub- 
section (2)(0. 



18 



(4) The department or its agent may not require a 
driver who may be in violation of this section to stop ex- 
cept upon reasonable cause to beUeve that he has violated 
another traffic regulation or that his vehicle is unsafe or 
not equipped as required by law. 

61-13-104. Penalty — no record permitted. (1) A driver 
who violates 61-13-103 must be fined $20, but the viola- 
tion is not a misdemeanor pursuant to 45-2-101, 46-18- 
236, 6 1-8-104, or 6 1-8-7 11. A violation of 61-1 3-103 may 
not be counted as a moving violation for purposes of sus- 
pending a driver's license under 61-1 1-203(2)(1). Bond 
for this offense is $20, and no jail sentence may be im- 
posed. 

(2) No violation of 61-13-103 may be recorded or 
charged against the driver's record of a person violating 
61-13-103, and no insurance company shall hold a viola- 
tion of 61-13-103 against the insured, and there may be 
no increase in premiums due to a violation of 6 1 - 1 3- 1 03. 

61-13-105. Education program. The highway traffic 
safety division of the department shall continue its pro- 
gram for public information and education concerning 
the benefits of wearing seatbelts and include within such 
program the requirements of 61-13-103 and the penalty 
specified in 6 1 - 1 3- 1 04. 

61-13-106. Evidence not admissible. Evidence of com- 
pliance or failure to comply with 6 1 - 1 3- 1 03 is not admis- 
sible in any civil action for personal injury or property 
damage resulting from the use or operation of a motor 
vehicle, and failure to comply with 61-13-103 does not 
constitute negligence. 




Complete Text of 
INITIATIVE NO. 113 



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

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1-14] may be cited as 
"The Montana Litter Control and Recycling Act." 

Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of [sections 1-14] is 
to: 

( 1 ) reduce beverage container litter and disposal costs; 

(2) reduce the wasteful use of energy and material re- 
sources; 

(3) encourage the reusing and recycling of beverage 
containers; 

(4) lessen injuries caused by broken glass containers; 
and 

(5) to institute a refund system for all beverage con- 
tainers. 



Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1-14], un- 
less the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following 
definitions apply: 

(1) "Beverage" means beer or other malt beverage, 
wine coolers, mineral water, tea, soda water and carbon- 
ated soft drink in liquid form for human consumption. 

(2) "Beverage container" means such sealed glass, 
metal, or plastic bottle or can that contains or contained a 
beverage. 

(3) "Clean" means free of dirt, soil, or foreign matter 
and containing nothing other than air and residue of the 
beverage which constitutes the original contents of the 
container. 

(4) "Consumer" means a person who buys a beverage 
in a beverage container for consumption. 

(5) "Department" means the department of health and 
environmental sciences. 

(6) "Distributor" means a person who sells a beverage 
in a beverage container to another distributor or to a re- 
tailer in this state. 

(7) "Person" means any individual, corporation, part- 
nership, association, governmental subdivision, or busi- 
ness organization of any kind. 

(8) "Redemption center" means an operation, other 
than a retailer, provided for in [section 9 of this act] that 
accepts from a consumer, and pays in cash the refund 
value for, a beverage container. 

(9) "Refillable" means a beverage container capable of 
being reused for sale of a beverage. 

( 1 0) "Retailer" means a person who sells a beverage in 
a beverage container to a consumer. 

Section 4. Refund value. Each beverage container sold 
or offered for sale in this state shall have a refund value of 
not less than 5 cents. A metal beverage container retains 
its refund value even if crushed, torn, or otherwise bent, 
if the whole label required by [section 5] is visible. 

Section 5. Labeling. ( 1 ) Except as provided in subsec- 
tion (2), the words "Montana Refund Value" and the re- 
fund value must be clearly and conspicuously indicated 
on every beverage container sold or offered for sale in 
this state in letters and numerals not less than one-fourth 
inch in height. The label required by this section must be 
firmly affixed to the beverage container, may not be indi- 
cated on the bottom of the container, and shall be marked 
in contrasting color on the top of each metal beverage 
container. 

(2) Any type of refillable glass beverage container hav- 
ing a refund value of not less than 5 cents prior to January 
1, 1990 and having a brand name permanently marked 
on it is not required to indicate the refund value as pro- 
vided in this section. 

Section 6. Retailer requirements. (1) Except as pro- 
vided in subsections (2) and (3), a retailer shall accept 
from any consumer, and shall pay in cash the refund 
value for, any beverage container that is: 

(a) empty, reasonably clean, and unbroken; 

(b) labeled as required in [section 5]; 

(c) of the kind, size, and brand sold by the retailer; and 



19 



(d) presented to the retailer at the retailer's place of 
business. 

(2) A retailer selling a beverage solely for consumption 
on the retailer's premises may choose not to charge a de- 
posit for the container and, if so choosing, is not required 
to pay a refund for accepting the container back. 

(3) A retailer may limit the total refund paid to any one 
consumer during any one day to a maximum of 10 dol- 
lars. 

Section 7. Distributor requirements. ( 1 ) A distributor 
shall accept from any retailer or redemption center, and 
shall pay in cash the refund value for, any beverage con- 
tainer that is: 

(a) empty, reasonably clean, and unbroken; 

(b) labeled as required in [section 5]; 

(c) of the kind, size, and brand sold by the distributor; 
and 

(d) accounted for and presented at the retailer's, re- 
demption center's, or distributor's place of business. 

(2) (a) In addition to the payment of the refund value, 
the distributor shall reimburse the retailer or redemption 
center for the cost of handling beverage containers. Ex- 
cept as provided in subsection (2)(b), such handling cost 
reimbursement must be at least 20% of the refund value 
of each beverage container accounted for and presented 
to the distributor by the retailer or redemption center as 
provided in subsection (1). 

(b) A distributor or group of distributors may sign an 
agreement with a retailer or redemption center designed 
to reduce counting, sorting, and other handling require- 
ments associated with returned beverage containers. The 
agreement may specify a mutually agreeable handling re- 
imbursement which is different from that required by 
subsection (2)(a). 

(3) A distributor shall, within 1 days of receiving writ- 
ten billing from a redemption center, fulfill all of the dis- 
tributor's obligations under subsections (1) and (2) to 
that redemption center. 

(4) A distributor may: 

(a) retain unclaimed deposits for beverage containers 
that arc not returned; and 

(b) establish reasonable procedures to prevent multi- 
ple redemption of beverage containers which a redemp- 
tion center chooses to retain. 

Section 8. Notice of refund on vending machines. 
Every owner of a vending machine that sells beverages in 
beverage containers shall, as a substitute for complying 
with the requirements of [section 6] with respect to that 
vending machine, post a conspicuous notice on the vend- 
ing machine stating that a refund of not less than 5 cents 
is available for each beverage container sold and stating 
the nearest location where the refund may be obtained. 

Section 9. Redemption centers. ( 1 ) Any person may es- 
tablish a redemption center after registering in writing 
with the department. 

(2) A redemption center may retain possession of any 
nonrefiUablc beverage container even after the distribu- 
tor has paid the refund and handling reimbursement. 



Section 10. Inspections. Those inspections deemed by 
the department as necessary to enforce [sections 5. 6 and 
8] shall be carried out by the department as part of its in- 
spection program set out at Title 50. Chapter 50. part 3, 
MCA with all powers and responsibilities defined therein 
to apply as necessary in [sections 5, 6 and 8]. 

Section 11. Enforcement. (1) The department may, 
through the attorney general or appropriate county attor- 
ney, file an action: 

(a) to collect a civil penalty as provided in [section 1 3] 
for a violation of [sections 1 -6 and 8- 1 4] or a rule adopted 
to implement [sections 1-6 and 8-14]; 

(b) to abate, prevent, restrain, or enjoin a violation of 
[sections 1-6 and 8-14] or a rule adopted to implement 
[sections 1-6 and 8-14]; or 

(c) to enforce the criminal penalties as provided for in 
[section 13]. 

(2) If, in an action brought under subsection ( 1 ), a vio- 
lation of [sections 1 -6 and 8- 1 4] or a rule adopted to im- 
plement [sections 1-6 and 8-14] is found, the court shall 
assess in favor of the department and against the defend- 
ant the costs of the action and reasonable attorney's fees. 
Monies recovered pursuant to this section shall be depos- 
ited: 

(a) with the county treasurer for deposit in the county 
general fund if the action was brought by the county at- 
torney on behalf of the department; or 

(b) in the state treasury in an earmarked revenue fund 
to defray the department's costs of the administration of 
[sections 1-6 and 8-14] and the rules adopted to imple- 
ment [sections 1-6 and 8-14]. 

(3) Venue for an action brought under [sections 1-6 
and 8-14] shall be in the First Judicial District, Lewis and 
Clark County, or in the County of any defendant/ 
respondent. 

Section 12. Department duties. (1) The department 
shall have full general rulemaking authority in regard to 
[sections 1 -6 and 8- 1 4]. In addition, the department shall 
have the authority and is required to adopt any rules nec- 
essary to administer [sections 1-6 and 8-12] not later 
than: 

(a) July 1 , 1 989 for [sections 1.2,3, 4, and 9]; and 

(b) November 1 , 1 989 for [sections 5, 6, 8, 10. 1 1 , and 

12]- . , 

(2) The department shall maintain a register of re- 
demption centers. 

Section 13. Penalties. (1) .A person who violates [sec- 
tions 1-6 and 8-14] or any rule adopted to implement 
[sections 1-6 and 8-14]: 

(a) is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction 
shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned in the 
county jail for a term no longer than 6 months, or both; or 

(b) is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $250. 
(2) Each day of violation of [sections 1-6 and 8-14] or a 

rule adopted to implement [sections 1-6 and 8-14] shall 
constitute a separate violation. Such separate violations 
may be joined in one information or complaint in several 
counts. 



20 



(3) Fines and penalties collected pursuant to this sec- 
tion shall be deposited in the state treasury in an ear- 
marked revenue fund to defray the cost of the depart- 
ment's administration of [sections 1-6 and 8-14] and the 
rules adopted to implement [sections 1-6 and 8-14]. 

Section 14. Private enforcement. (1) Any person may 
commence a civil action in District Court on his own be- 
half against any person who is alleged to be in violation of 
any requirements of [sections 1-14]. 

(2) No action may commence under this section: (a) 
prior to 60 days after the person preparing to bring the 
action has given notice to the department of the alleged 
violation and his intention to bring an enforcement 
action; or (b) if the department has begun and is dili- 
gently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of 
competent jurisdiction. 

(3) The court may award costs of litigation and reason- 
able attorney fees to the prevailing party in any litigation 
brought pursuant to this section. 

(4) Venue for an action brought under this section shall 
be in the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, 
or in the County of any defendant/respondent. 



Section 15. Intent to be adequately funded. The voters, 
by their passage of this act, express their intent that the 
Montana legislature appropriate the necessary funding 
for the department to effectively administer and enforce 
[sections 1 -6 and 8- 1 4] and the rules to be adopted to im- 
plement [sections 1-6 and 8-14]. 

Section 16. Severability. Ifa part of [sections I -6 and 8- 
14] is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the 
invalid part remain in effect. Ifapart of [sections 1-14] is 
invalid in one or more of its applications, all valid appli- 
cations that are severable from the invalid application re- 
main in effect. 

Section 17. This act shall become effective as follows: 

(1) Sections 12, 15 and 16 and this section shall be- 
come effective upon passage; 

(2) Sections 1 through 1 1 and 13 through 14 shall be- 
come effective January 1 , 1 990. 



21 



NOTES 



22 




MONTANA CENTENNIAL MESSAGE 
FROM SECRETARY OF STATE 



Election Day, November 8, 1988, is Montana's 99th birthday. It is our last election before going 
into our 100th year celebration. On November 8, 1988, Governor Ted Schwinden will proclaim the 
official beginning of the Centennial year and the start of our extraordinary calendar of programs to 
celebrate the Centennial border to border. 

Elections have been very important in Montana for more than 1 00 years. Montana became a U.S. 
Territory in May, 1 864. Montanans were happy to be a U.S. Territory but unhappy that they could 
not choose by ballot, their top state officials. The President of the United States appointed the terri- 
torial governor, secretary, judges, attorney and marshals for four-year terms. The citizens of Mon- 
tana did, however, have the opportunity to vote for members of the House and the Council who 
served as the territorial legislative body. Other things were also quite different as there was no secret 
ballot, women could not vote, and Negroes and Indians were not permitted to vote. We petitioned 
for statehood after the Enabling Act was passed by the U.S. Congress and became law on February 
22, 1889. 

In 1 889, when we became a state, we had the secret ballot and the opportunity to vote for all of our 
state officials. However, U.S. Senators were not chosen by direct vote of the people, they were cho- 
sen by the state legislature. The 1 5th amendment in 1 870 had declared that we could not abridge the 
right of anyone to vote because of race, color or previous condition of servitude. In 1920, the 19th 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed stating that a citizen's right to vote could not be 
denied because of sex. Of course, we in Montana were well ahead of this by granting women the right 
to vote by Constitutional Referendum on November 11, 1914. The first major election women 
voted at was the election of 1 9 1 6. 

I can think of no better way to enter Montana's 100th year than by exercising your privilege and 
sacred right of voting. A state is only as good as the people to whom we entrust it. A privilege and 
right too long neglected can be lost. So, I urge you to make this a truly significant citizen celebration 
by exercising your right to vote and helping and encouraging all Montana citizens to do the same. 
Happy 99th birthday and 1 00th year! 



VERNER L. BERTELSEN 
Secretary of State 



23 



ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR 

County Courthouse 



DO NOT FORWARD 



396.000 copies of this public document were pub- 
(istied at an estimated cost of 7c per copy, for a total 
cost ol $27,660.80. which includes $27,660 80 lor 
printing and $2,000.00 for distribution. 



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



24