Cowgirl touched on this, but three initiatives have been approved of by the SoS:
• I-161, which proposes changing how hunter access programs are funded. If voters approve the measure, it would abolish outfitter-sponsored nonresident licenses and nix the requirement that licensed outfitters supervise hunts conducted by out-of-state clients. It would also increase the cost of a nonresident big game license 43 percent and a combination deer license by 61 percent. Opponents of the initiative claim the signatures were gathered illegally.
• I-164, known as the "payday loan initiative." The measure proposes limiting the annual interest, fees and charges certain lenders may charge on loans to 36 percent.
• CI-105, which would amend the Montana Constitution to prohibit creating a new tax on the sale or transfer of property in the state.
B'birder problembear, of course, has helped gather signatures for I-164 and has written a few posts on it. I won't jinx the initative, but I can't imagine a majority of Montanans voting for 400 percent interest rates on the poor.
I have no opinion on I-161. Is it a spiteful attack on outfitters? Or a means to cut down on trophy hunting and keep permits out of the hands of wealthy hobbyists and the exclusive clubs that serve them? Anyone want to make an argument for or against that one?
And then there's CI-105. Dan Testa profiled it way back in April:
Its goal is to gather enough signatures to place Constitutional Initiative-105 on the ballot in November. If passed by voters, the measure would amend the state Constitution to prohibit the Legislature or any municipality from passing a real estate transfer tax (RETT). Such a tax can be applied to sales, inheritances or like-kind exchanges of property, and is usually imposed at the time of closing, along with other taxes or fees.
All you need to know about it is that John Sinrud's working on it, so it must fit in with some especially creepy and radical right-wing machinations.
But if guilt-by-association doesn't work for you, here's Eric Feaver with a reasoned argument against the initiative:
"CI-105 would prohibit a tax that does not exist. It would embed that prohibition in Montana's state constitution," said MEA-MFT President Eric Feaver. "It is at root an anti-government measure."
CI-105 would constitutionally prohibit a real estate transfer tax. CI-105 could also potentially prevent local governments and public schools from using local impact fees to cover the costs of new subdivisions and student enrollment growth.
The Montana Association of Realtors is the chief group backing CI-105. "We are surprised to see the Realtors pushing a measure like this," Feaver said. "They are playing right into the hands of right-wing, anti-government groups that have worked for years to cripple Montana's public services by amending our state constitution through ballot initiatives."
"Demonizing government and taxes hurts us all. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society."
I'm not optimistic about stopping this. It's sort of flown under the radar, for starters. For another, it's sort of a brilliant rhetorical campaign: the group organizing it is calling itself the "Coalition Against Double Taxation," a clear, negative message about the tax - which doesn't even exist - forcing opponents to defend "double taxation" and to imply they favor expanding new taxes. All of which leads me to believe that Sinrud and friends must be getting outside help on this one...
And, last, some good news: CI 102, the "personhood" amendment, that would strip Montana women of their right to privacy and define life as beginning at conception, failed miserably. This isn't the first time this has come up, of course. Back in 2007, Rick Jore tried to stick his nose into the state's vaginae in the state legislature with a bill that was too radical for the Catholic Church. The usual folks trotted the initiative out again this year, and again, the initiative couldn't find enough backers to make the ballot.
"We have barely begun the fight," says bill backer, Dr. Annie Bukacek, "we will keep working on it until their personhood is established in our Montana constitution."
"Um, Ms. Bukaceck," writes Cowgirl, "you've been working on this for three years already, it's not happening..." That probably won't dissuade Bukacek, but it does bode well for the rights of Montana women and their right to privacy. |
