This what it looks like on paper. Everyone try and sway me - my vote counts, plus I can't really interpret what for or against means on this one. This is some slippery writing.


A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PEDITION

This measure may require reduced future expenditures in servearal areas of government serveices where caseloads historically have grown at a rate exceeding cobined growth in population and inflation, such as correctional poplulation and Medicaid recipients, or may require reduced future expenditures in other areas to offset those increasing caseload consts.

- For limiting the increase in appropriations to the combined growth rate of population and inflation, or the largest spending limit for any previous biennium.

- Against the liminting the increase in appropriations to the combined growth rate of poplulation and inflations, or the largest spending limit for any prvious biennium.

Montana's constitution already requires a balanced budget.

Article VIII - Revenue And Finance, Section 9 states:
"Balanced budget. Appropriations by the legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue."
http://leg.mt.gov/css/mtc.../const.asp

That's pretty simple. It's understandable. It works, we operate within a balanced budget.

As you know, CI-97 uses a heck of a lot of words.
http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/arc.../CI-97.asp

I've read through it a couple times, and I can't tell you for sure what it says.

I've listen to the pros and cons of it. I've listened to all the buzz about how it's a good thing. All the buzz about how it's a bad thing. The buzz about illegal gathering of petition signatures, out-of-state funding, etc. etc.

But for me the bottom line is, I can't really understand what CI-97 means. So I'm voting no.

I would like to know what would happen under CI-97 should something happen that's unexpected or beyond the control of the state government. Wouldn't CI-97 hamstring the state when it comes to adjusting to such unforseen circumstances?

Didn't the state determine that measure was not going to be on the ballot? The backers have filed an appeal. Maybe I missed something but I thought it was a mute point now as it was not going to count.

Kacey,

The three ballot measures that were challenged in court will still appear on everyone's ballot.
CI-97 - http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/arc.../CI-97.asp
CI-98 - http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/arc.../CI-98.asp
I-154 - http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/arc.../I-154.asp

And yes there are appeals underway concerning whether or not they're legitimate measure.

But, county election officials will still tabulate the votes on these measures - just in case there is a post-election court decision stating that they are valid.

So if these measures are important to you, one way or the other, you need to vote on them - don't ignore them.

"I would like to know what would happen under CI-97 should something happen that's unexpected or beyond the control of the state government."

Government would have to provide a ballot measure to ask the people for extra funding... just as happened in Colorado recently. If the people don't see the need to increase funding, the need probably isn't that great. This is one area where liberal types don't really want every vote to count.

Today's Supreme Court really digs the ambiguous language we have in our constitution's current form. It lets them "interpret" their way into subverting the legislature's power to decide how it spends money.

It lets them say... you shall increase education spending... we don't care how you get the money or who you take it from... the Eminent Tribunal has spoken.

I'd be interested to see how many proponents of "simple language" would advocate a flat tax based on the same concept.

Didnt Colorado recently vote to repeal a similar initiative? If this initiative is an attempt to 'simplify' the language of our constitution as rick states it sure is a pi## poor effort.

http://sos.state.mt.us/EL...IP2006.pdf

Well, I voted 'no'

I laughed a little when I reread it from Hal's links. It's really, really horrible. There is just no making heads or tails of it. I hope I didn't vote no to not do something stupid.

It seems like truth in labeling laws ought to apply to this kind of stuff.

I bet no one knows the truth about some of these things.

---Buck Showalter wrote:
>>It's really, really horrible. There is just no making heads or tails of it. I hope I didn't vote no to not do something stupid.
- - - - - - - -

Given the choices:

Article VIII - Revenue And Finance, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution
http://leg.mt.gov/css/mtc.../const.asp
versus
CI-97
http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/arc.../CI-97.asp

I used Occam's razor (lex parsimoniae or in modern terms: K.I.S.S.) to make my decision. I opted for what I thought to be the least complicated of the two alternatives and voted no.