Montana Republicans, who will enjoy large majorities in both chambers at the state Capitol this upcoming session, plan on bypassing Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s veto pen by referring some divisive measures directly to voters in 2012. Let’s hope by then the state requires the Voter Information Pamphlet, which is used to explain each referendum, to be thoroughly scrutinized.
If you’re unfamiliar with the pamphlet, it’s published by the secretary of state’s office and includes testimony from both proponents and opponents of each proposal. They explain whether we need each ballot issue, which can be extremely complex.
The following are a few referendums the GOP may consider this session: replacing the state income tax with a sales tax; opting out of daylight-savings time; providing tax reductions based on the state’s general fund surplus; capping state pay and benefits; and providing tax credits for students who attend private school. Many of the ideas make sense, but the devil, of course, will be in the details. And the problem is many voters won’t be privy to them.
Following the 2010 election, in which interest rates were capped on payday lending businesses and limits instituted and license fees raised for nonresident hunters, a common complaint among those on the losing arguments of the initiatives sounded something like this: “I really don’t think people understood what they were voting for.”
I believe the state’s voters are smarter than they are often given credit for. But if there ends up being a half-dozen or more ballot issues to keep track of in 2012, it’s bound to confuse most of us, especially if they are presented in similar fashion as those in the last election. Flipping through the most recent Voter Information Packet, there appears to be few limits as to what one can say about any given measure and even fewer attribution requirements.
Take the argument for calling a Montana Constitutional Convention, which was written by Republican state Sens. Joe Balyeat and Ken Miller and Rep. Cary Smith. It includes the following language: Montana’s leading constitutional scholar has stated: “The Montana constitution needs an overhaul badly … defects have cropped up that seriously need to be cured, and a con-con is the only way to do this.”
As a voter, the first thing I would like to know is who this “leading constitutional scholar” is. There is then a reference to a “nationally-respected law professor/economist” who also remains nameless. (Lee Newspapers’ Chuck Johnson reported the professor is Rob Natelson, who now works for a conservative Colorado think tank.) Apparently, while middle schoolers have to cite sources when they write book reports, that’s not the case when making an argument to change the state’s constitution. And it gets worse.
Proponents of the convention also argued that the “state government is borrowing so fast that Montana recently made national headlines as the [emphasis theirs] ‘10th MOST DEBT-RIDDEN STATE.’”
I hadn’t heard about that statistic before I read it in this state-issued document because it is based on some obscure ranking compiled by Mainstreet.com in 2009 and refers to 2008 college graduates’ education loans. The same website also found that Montana is the fourth-drunkest state in the country. But I digress.
Jean Bowman, who was elected to the 1972 Constitutional Convention, pointed out in an editorial opposing the measure that Forbes.com recently found that “Montana’s debt ranks ninth best of all 50 states.”
But anyone can quote such findings, which appear contradictory on their face, to support or oppose a ballot measure in the Voter Information Pamphlet without including the formula used to come up with the statistic or even the source where it originated.
Before presenting voters with a half-dozen referendums, perhaps someone should propose a bill that requires a bibliography with each argument and includes a “works cited” list. At least then voters can differentiate between facts based on thoughtful research and those originating from a random Google search.