Backers of three ballot measures addressing conservative causes invalidated by state District Court judges contend that two other initiatives favored by the political left should be disqualified for similar reasons.
A state District Court judge last month invalidated two constitutional initiatives (97, limiting the growth of government, and 98, making it easier for voters to remove judges from office) and Initiative 154, which would require government to compensate property owners for value or profits diminished by regulations. Judge Dirk Sandefur of Great Falls cited a “signature-gathering process Š permeated by a pervasive and general pattern of deceit, fraud and procedural non-compliance.” Separately, Judge Thomas Honzel of Helena ruled CI-97 is unconstitutional.
Proponents of those measures say two other initiatives - I-151, seeking to raise the state's minimum wage, and I-153, seeking to slow down legislators' race to become lobbyists - employed signature-gathering practices similar to those invalidated by Sandefur.
They need to make their case to the courts, not us. But, taken at face value, the allegations certainly seem plausible. For example, State Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, says the head of the state's teachers' union signed affidavits certifying the signatures gathered by others without actually witnessing the signing. If so, that's a problem, because that's one of the practices the judge found troubling. There's at least reason to examine whether people gathering signatures for other initiatives followed all the rules as applied to the conservative measures.
But it's also necessary to reform the initiative process to avoid such business in the future.
Initiatives are an instrument of direct democracy. Montanans have the constitutional right to create laws and amend the constitution on their own. Among other reasons why this is good is it prevents unresponsive or corrupt legislators and governors from thwarting the public's will. Any reading of Montana history and the Anaconda Co.'s control of the Legislature will speak to the merits of the initiative process.
But direct democracy doesn't exactly work if it's left to the courts to decide what people can vote for and what they cannot. We need an initiative process that limits the potential for control by the courts.
Toward that end, let us propose law and/or constitutional changes to:
Reduce the number of signatures required to qualify measures for the ballot. Setting the bar too high unreasonably restricts the people's ability to propose laws and amendments and encourages signature-gathering practices that push the ethical envelope or stray beyond the law. Efforts to rein in questionable practices invariably make the rules more complex, creating ever more opportunities for confusion, mistakes and contention. The issue at hand should be whether the proposed legislation is any good, not whether the signatures were properly gathered. Gathering signatures should be as simple and straight-forward as it can be.
Bar payment for gathering signatures. This is like paying for votes. It's an invitation for abuse and corruption because it creates a profit motive to gather signatures.
Require all signature gatherers to be registered voters residing in Montana. Qualifications for gathering signatures should be the same as for signing a petition.
This fall's election has all the makings of a train wreck as far as ballot measures are concerned. That's a shame. The array of issues presented through initiative are pretty interesting and deserving of serious discussion and are, in fact, worth deciding through an election.
On the upside, however, if the political right and left wind up similarly displeased by the inability to place their measures before voters, perhaps Montana will have the makings of a coalition intent on reforming the initiative process to make it more user-friendly.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)