In this election cycle, voters in Montana are being asked to make a decision on three ballot initiatives and a call for a Constitutional Convention. There has been very few pixels devoted to the Call for a Constitutional Convention and very little written about two of the three ballot initiatives. I am going to take this opportunity to comment on all four.
***
Before I begin, though, I want to make it clear that I am very supportive of the idea of Citizen Initiatives. It is one means that voters can get issues addressed when they feel failed by thier elected officials. While I would be the first to admit that these initiatives are often watered down after the fact by the courts and subsequent legislation, they definitely are a wakeup call for our elected officials. When a group of citizens are able to garner enough votes to put an initiative on the ballot, they are saying “You people we elected to represent us have failed in your duty” and those elected officials had better step up and notice that fact.
***
Anyway.. on to the Initiatives on the Ballot
***
Constitutional Convention Call -
First on the agenda is the Call for a Constitutional Convention. This isn’t actually a citizen initiative but rather something required by our existing Constitution. Every 20 years following it’s last submission, the state is required to put this on the ballot.
***
While there is some support for this Call, it is primarly from the Wingnuts. When the last call took place it failed by an 80/20 margin. In my opinion, Montana has one of the best Constitutions in the US and it is my opinion that a Constitutional Convention would only destroy the freedoms we have built into our State Constitution. In fact, the only real issue I have with our Constitution is an amendment added a few years ago defining marraige as being between a man and a woman, and it is my opinion that this amendment will be struck down by the Montana Supreme Court in the not so distant future – in part BECAUSE we have so many individual rights built into our Constitution.
***
I am definitely voting against this Call for a Constitutional Convention and I look forward to spending many more years protected by it’s well written guarentees.
***
Constitutional Initiative No. 105 -
This Constitutional Initiative is designed to amend our State Constitution to prohibit state or local governments from imposing any new tax on transactions that sell or transfer real property.
***
Let’s be clear here, there is no existing tax on real estates sales transactions. This measure is a preventative measure aimed at preventing something that isn’t being done currently. While there have been a few proposals for starting this practice in Montana, none of them have succeeded at the legislative level.
***
My problems with this Initiative begin with it being set up to prevent something that hasn’t happened and doesn’t exist yet. Yes, there are other states that do charge a Real Estate Transfer Tax, but Montana isn’t one of them. Adding a specific restriction at this point seems pre-emptive and limiting. This leads me to problem number two -
***
Why would we want to put such a specific pre-emptive measure in the Constitution? Shouldn’t this be handled at the legislative level? It makes no sense to me to un-necessarily add an amendment to the State Constitution for a specific event (one which hasn’t happened yet). The Constitution is suppose to the framework we hang our laws and operation on, not the specific “How to” of meeting that framework. This issue does not belong in the Constitution. The people who want to prevent this tax from passing need to keep thier concerns at the Legislative level - where they belong. I am voting NO on this Initiative.
***
Initiative No. 161
***
This Ballot Initiative would replace the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored Big Game licenses with 5,500 general nonresident licenses as well as increasing the amount charged for nonresident licenses.
***
At first glance, I was not really sure which way to go on this one. I read both sides of the issue in the Voter Handbook and was still undecided. It wasn’t until I spent some time talking to friends and family that have hunted in Montana since before I returned to the state that I really made my decision. I am going to vote AGAINST this measure for the following reasons -
***
First, I know a lot of outfitters (it is hard not to in Dillon) and they all say the same thing – this measure would significantly hurt not only thier business, but the businesses here in town that rely on the outfitter sponsered hunts. Having these licences transfered to general non-resident licenses doesn’t guarentee that the licenses will result in actual revenue for state businesses and it certainly takes money out of the pockets of hard working Montanans.
***
Second, the very idea of some out of state yahoo wandering around in the forest without an outfitter running herd of him literally gives me shivers. I certainly won’t say that all out of state hunters are idiots, but enough of them are to give me pause even considering going into the woods during hunting season. I have personally witnessed shots being taken at horses, mules, cattle, goats and people by idiot out of state people with thier 10,000$ hunting rifle and zero experience in the woods. The idea that our area could be inundated with 5,500 more of these morons could easily cause sleepless nights. For this reason alone, I would vote no.
***
The downside to voting no on this initiative is that the increase in the price of the nonresident licenses could result in an estimated increase in revenue for the state of $700,000 annually. This is a significant chunk of change. Still, I would have much rather seen this increase in license fees without the transfer of outfitter licenses to general nonresident licenses. If this measure doesn’t pass (which I hope it doesn’t), I would love to see one of our state legislators propose this increase in license fees.
***
Initiative No. 164
***
This ballot initiative has seen a LOT of pixels (and airwaves) recently. In short, this measure would limit the amount of fees/interest that a “defered deposit” (otherwise known as a payday) lender can charge. It is not a new idea (many states have instituted similar policies) but it is one that is being pretty fiercely argued.
***
Let me state up front that I cannot be completely unbiased about this measure. My daughter, while attending college in Washington, ended up afoul of one of these payday lenders and she simply couldn’t dig herself out until we found out about and dug her out ourselves. For many that use these services, it ends up being a never ending cycle that eventually drains what little funds they have.
***
The opposition to this measure will tell you how irresponcible these people who use these services are and they have tried to paint these individuals in a very bad light. It is too bad for them that far too many voters in Montana know people that have been screwed over by these vultures. They will also tell you how harmful it is that the government would regulate thier “Free Market enterprise” but again, that argument falls flat. These people are nothing more than legal Loan Sharks and until someone steps in and calls them on thier BS, it will continue unabated. If you can’t already tell, I am voting FOR this initiative. If it means that these vultures close up shop and head to greener pastures, so much the better.
***
This has been my take on the four measures before the voters of Montana. Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but if you do disagree, please be kind enough to state why you disagree.
Pingback: I’m Kinda Agreeing « 4&20 blackbirds
I really appreciate your analysis! I initially found it difficult to come down strongly on either side of any of the initiatives. The voter pamphlet really didn’t help — as much as I’ve always appreciated that publication, I’m beginning to feel it it too often solicits debate that is barely more informative than a typical political advertisement.
(The CC was a no-brainer, though. I’m glad the framers built in the 20-year call, but as you say, the existing document is a good one. And no way do I want to see a Convention in the Teabagger era.)
A few minutes after posting, I realize I ought to expand on the rather broad swipe at the end of my previous comment.
The Tea Party movement embodies what I see as the worst form of libertarianism: the knee-jerk belief that government can never be helpful, and is usually harmful. With such a mentality finding an impressive swell of enthusiasm and mobilization, I would be very concerned about the survival prospects of some of the Montana Constitution’s great protections — “the right to a clean and healthful environment” obviously comes to mind, but even the Coal Trust and the preservation of public education and public lands could be in danger.
Maybe I’m just imputing motives. But a political environment where a corporate-friendly centrist is frequently called a socialist, a time when a mandate for health care is painted as a grave threat to our fundamental freedoms, strikes me as a particularly bad time to be writing a founding document.
I agree that it is a bad time to monkeying with something as fundamental as our Constitution. It is sort of like going to the Grocery store hungry. You get things you might not really want.
CCC – All I can add is Amen to your comments. Just voting fulfills the requirements. Our State Constitution is one to be admired.
CI-105 – Amen again – Legislative level not Constitution. People get so freeked about their personal property taxes that I hope thought goes into their vote instead of reaction. Do feel it was a minipulative ploy by Corporations to sucker us into something that ultimately locks in benefit for them, not us.
I-161 – Yes we “need” our outfitters and it very clearly states the private property owner has the right to say “no” to the outfitters. Also regs for outfitters are quite clear, and if there are unreputable ones that’s a separate issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere. Agree it should have been two different issues, and I would have voted for the increas in fees.
I-164 – This one was difficult for me, but ultimately I came to the same conclusion as with outfitters – address cracking down on the leaches that take advantage through regs that already exist before this step.
Pingback: Vote NO on Constitutional Initiative 105 « 4&20 blackbirds