HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The ongoing battle voters and their ballot initiatives have with elected lawmakers is about to get more intense.
Nearly every time voters have used the ballot box to change state law with an initiative in recent years the Montana Legislature has later at least tried to change it or abolish it altogether.
Most recently, the Montana Legislature completely revamped the voter-approved medical marijuana law — an effort that is now being challenged in court and with another separate initiative effort.
But a new group wants to make it much harder for the legislature to tinker with initiatives — an idea that has already caught the attention of leading state legislators.
The proposed change to the Montana Constitution would require lawmakers to send their suggested changes back to the voters for another vote. Backers of the effort say it is too easy right now for the Legislature to change an initiative that takes hundreds of hours in signature-gathering just to qualify for the ballot.
The initiative cleared a hurdle late last week where election officials sent the proposed language to the attorney general’s office for final approval.
“I just really think a lot of the voters are angry at the way the Legislature has really disregarded their votes,” said Nathan Pierce, a spokesman for a group called Montana Coalition for Rights. “I think we will have a lot of support for this type of initiative.”
Not a lot is known about the coalition that was founded this year, or their ability to mount an arduous constitutional initiative campaign. The group has not filed fundraising reports yet, and there is not a public list of members or supporters.
Pierce is a Missoula real estate broker who at one time earlier this year was also the head of theMontana Cannabis Industry Association that was fighting the legislative efforts to change the medical marijuana law. He stepped down from that post amid drug charges that he said have yet to be resolved.
But Pierce said the marijuana issue is not driving the coalition. Another active group leader isMichelle Hutsell of Billings, a registered nurse and a real estate saleswoman.
Pierce said the initiative has backing from across the political spectrum, although he said several board members want to remain anonymous.
It is not easy to change state law with an initiative, and it generally takes more than 30,000 signatures from many legislative districts. It will take nearly 50,000 signatures to place before voters the proposal to change the Montana Constitution to better protect initiatives from legislative tinkering.
For example, last election cycle only one of five proposed changes to the constitution even advanced to the ballot. That one, backed with cash from real estate brokers and others, banned any potential for a real estate transfer tax in Montana. Before that, the last successful change to the constitution was in 2004 when voters defined marriage as between a man and woman.
Ballot initiatives that simply change state law have a higher success rate.
In 2004, voters approved the medical marijuana law and set aside more money for children’s health insurance. In 2006, voters approved a higher minimum wage and new restrictions on state workers becoming lobbyists. In 2008, voters backed another children’s health insurance expansion. And in 2010, voters passed new restrictions on outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses and a crackdown on payday loans.
In every case lawmakers have either made changes to the initiative or tried to — changes the lawmakers argue are often needed, perhaps as budget situations change or the full impact of the new citizen law is realized.
The issue was a topic of discussion Thursday at a legislative leadership meeting.
Legislative staff attorney Todd Everts told the Legislative Council that the proposed change to the constitution would limit the power of the Legislature, and make it hard for them to touch an initiative passed by the people.
Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell, pointed to California as the only other state with an initiative process that does not allow the Legislature to subsequently make changes to laws put in place by the voters. He and others pointed out such restrictions don’t let lawmakers put “meat” on the bones of citizen initiatives.
Some critics argue the California initiative process has allowed too many changes to law with no way of undoing them.
However, the Montana proposal would be a little different in that lawmakers could put proposed changes back to the voters with a new ballot question. Initiative backers say the safeguards are needed because it is so difficult in the first place for voters to qualify and pass an initiative.
“For the legislature to come in, based on their political or ideological beliefs, and overturn that process doesn’t sound fair,” said Pierce.
