Initiative Progress

There are three very controversial Initiatives that qualified for the Montana ballot that have been creating a lot of talk.<br />n<br />nCI-97: The Montana Constitution currently prohibits appropriations by the legislature that exceed anticipated revenue. This measure adds a constitutional spending limit that would prohibit increases in appropriations greater than the combined growth rate of population and inflation. <br />n<br />nCI-98: Montana statutes currently provide for the recall of public officials, including state court justices or judges, for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. This measure amends the Montana Constitution to provide for recall by petition of state court justices or judges for any reason.<br />n<br />nI-154: Current law allows state and local governments to take or damage private property for public use, on payment of just compensation. First, this initiative requires governments to waive any new regulation that reduces<br />nproperty values, unless they compensate owners for the reduced value. This requirement does not apply to public health and safety. <br />n<br />nSecond, this initiative prohibits governments from taking private property if they intend to transfer an interest in the taken property to another private party. This prohibition does not apply to private utility, water, transportation, and mining projects currently defined as public uses. <br />n<br />nThis initiative requires significant state and local government expenditures to respond to additional property owner claims. Further expenditures to pay property owner claims will depend on future policy choices, and whether state and local governments decide to waive regulations instead of paying claims.<br />n<br />nI notice the initiatives got a <a href="http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/09/13/news/state/45-coffers.txt">big infusion of money</a> to help promote them. That is one of the big problems with these initiatives. They are mostly funded by out of state interests and the big question is why? Why are these people spending this money on these initiatives? It's all mute now, for the moment. A Judge has struck all three down.<br />n<br />n<a href="http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/09/13/news/state/23-initiatives.txt" >State Judge invalidates trio of initiatives</a><br />n<br />n<blockquote>A state district judge Wednesday invalidated three controversial ballot measures in Montana, citing a "pervasive and general pattern of fraud" in the signature-gathering process that placed them on the November ballot.<br />n<br />nThe measures include a constitutional initiative to cap state spending, another constitutional change making it easier to recall judges, and an initiative on property rights.<br />n<br />nDistrict Judge Dirk Sandefur of Great Falls invalidated thousands of signatures turned in by four out-of-state, paid signature-gatherers. He said that invalidation means the measures are thrown off the November ballot.</blockquote><br />n<br />nThe backers of these initiatives brought in out of state paid people to gather signatures to qualify these initiatives for the ballot. Why if these are so popular with the people of Montana was it necassary to bring in paid signature gatherers? Why did these people, who are paid per signature by the way, lie to people to get them to sign the petions? To make money of course. This pervase lying by the signature gatherers is the main reason these initiatives are being thrown out. <br />n<br />nI am sure the new infusion of money will be used to fight this desicion in court. I do think the judges decision will stand with the many documented irregulerities in the signature process.<br />n<br />nNow for my personel opinion of these initiatives.<br />n<br />nCI-97: Bad idea. Governemt and/or buisness can not operate on such striginent budgets. The unexpected can always nhappen and the process to get more money is to cumbersome to work in a tight situation.<br />n<br />nCI-98: We can all ready remove judges for quite a raft of reasons. Why do we need to expamd it to remove them for any reason? We don't. Bad idea.<br />n<br />nI-154: This is the most difficult one of the bunch. While it sounds like a good idea I think it goes a little too far. My understanding of it might be faulty but it sounds like if the government passes any regualtion that affects you, they have to pay damages. Let's say they decide coal bed methane water hurts the fish in the streams and downstream irrigators and ban putting the water in the streams. The developer of the coal bed methane would have to be paid for its worth along with the mineral rights holder of the methane for the lost production. Sounds like a step to far. If my understanding is wrong, then the wording of the initiative needs changed to make it clearer to dumb cowboys like me.<br />n<br />nI think the people of Montana were smart enough to turn these initiatives down but it is good to see the integrity of the initiative process is being upheld by the Judge. It was a good decision.<br />n<br />n<strong>Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus</strong>