This election cycle has been shaping up as a pretty slow one here in Montana. Neither of our senators is up for re-election this year, our governor’s elections are on the same schedule as the Presidency, and our incumbent at-large representative is expected to win by a double-digit margin.
Well, the other day, I got a copy of the voter’s information guide, a pamphlet published by the state government. I’m leafing through it reading the ballot issues… Nothing big, someone wants to constitutionally prohibit a kind of tax we don’t even have in the first place, changing the fee structure on out-of-state hunting permits, a proposal to toss out the entire state constitution and start from scratch…
Wait, what was that last one?
Apparently, the current state constitution is only 38 years old, and one of the provisions in it is that at least every twenty years, the voters have to decide whether to hold a new constitutional convention. I’m now left wondering if this sort of thing is at all typical of state constitutions, and if there are any that are even younger than ours.
For what it’s worth, I plan to vote against it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and last I saw, Montana was one of only a handful of states still in the black, so we must be doing something right.
Michigan has something similar. Every 16 (if memory serves me right) years, we have the option to form a Constitutional Convention.
Most everyone agrees that it’s silly to do such a thing right now, except for ardent Teabaggers. It won’t happen and it won’t get traction, but it’s there, and it’s an issue.
Eh, we’ll get our share in a couple of years. I expect Gov. Schweitzer will probably win re-election (he’s very popular), but it’ll be interesting to see which way the state goes in the presidential race (we were pretty close in 2008), and there’s talk that Rep. Rehberg might challenge Sen. Tester, which should be something to watch.
And I’m a bit surprised to hear that there are (at least) three states with provisions like this. I’d expect that, even if such constitutional provisions were to exist at all, they’d disappear quickly through evolutionary pressures: I’d expect a constitution with such a provision to last a much shorter time than one without, and thus would expect constitutions without to be much more common.
I remember Montana! Lived near there for a number of years.
I remember a hot gov. race where the winning candidate successfully won on a platform of getting out of staters to pay most of Montana’s taxes. To his credit he successfully pushed through many reforms which were then struck down as unlawful.
I also remember tangling with the Montana Highway patrol because I taught a class just across the border (in Montana) and a patrolman really really really thought I should have to have a Montana car license because I ‘worked’ in Montana. He would lie in wait for me (I’m pretty sure) and we would verbally tangle about whether it was required in which he would threaten that I had been warned and next time I would be arrested and my car taken away. {So I informed the facility that I could no longer teach the class and they quickly fixed the issue…but it still pissed off the patrolman and I had to deal with many stops}
I bring this up because I notice out-of-state license in your OP…Is Montana still fascinated with getting non-Montanans to pay their taxes?
OH! I also went for an interview there (teaching high school) and when I asked why the position was open they responded that a student had shot and killed him. {Montana was also the place of another school that offered me $9000 per year for a full time teaching position.}
I think it’s less about revenue, and more about preferring that the Californians[sup]*[/sup] stay out of Montana in the first place. But I will admit that, as a Montana resident, taxes are pretty low, so clearly, something’s working. I think it’s partly industrial taxes (mostly on mining, that being the major “industrial” sector here), partly nickle-and-diming of tourists, partly federal money coming in (mostly through the Department of the Interior; we’ve got a lot of national forests, etc.), and partly low spending.
The $9000 teaching job-- I’m guessing that was on an Indian reservation? I’ve known a few folks who have considered those, and they’re really more about resume-building than the pay.
To a Montanan, “Californian” (or equivalently, “Califoreigner” or “Californicator”) means anyone from anywhere other than Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska, Alberta, or Saskatchewan who moves to Montana (at least, during the summer) and drives the real estate prices up.
I realize my post came off anti-Montana…and Montana does have many things that bothered me but as a whole I liked Montana. Probably because I was born and raised in Western ND which is pretty much the same culture wise.
However, the $9000 position was not on a reservation. I had an offer there as well and they offered a little over $13k IIRC (this was 1987 so $13K was a pathetic salary then and so don’t justify it mentally as 1950’s :D).
The $9000 I think it was in or near Helena (?sp). When I received the offer which they had phoned me and said was coming I actually really did think it was a typo and they had accidently left off a ‘1’ in front of it. I was all set to accept it but had to call to make sure it was really a typo and for them to send out a corrected contract.
When I talked to the superintendent he did confirm that it was $9000 and not $19000. I was stunned. I didn’t really know what to say. He then tried to justify the salary and I lept on that as…‘Oh you provide housing!??’? No. Housing stipend? No. What is rent on an apartment in Helena?
I ended up getting irritated at the offer and his attempts to justify it. I said I would accept the offer if he would provide a budget that provided a reasonable standard of living…including apartment, car, savings for retirement etc. He then finally realized I wasn’t a fool and the conversation ended.
After that, and the Indian reservation…and the town where the previous teacher was shot and killed…plus 2 other ‘offers’ I received near Billings (not as unbelieveable as $9K but not making much inroads into 5 figures)…I crossed off Montana as a place I would continue to look for a job. It was really discouraging to have so many offers but none of them really legitimate.
Iowa is another one of these. I believe every 20 years, a state constitutional amendment goes on the ballot. It’s on there this year.
What makes that especially scary is there’s a big conservative push in this year’s election to vote against the three state Supreme Court justices who are on the ballot. You see, in April 2009 the state Supremes ruled unanimously that Iowa’s Defense of Marriage act banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Some pesky thing about equal treatment or some other socialist-like language in the state constitution. So they threw out the law, and in the absence of a same-sex marriage ban, same-sex marriage became de facto legal. (I’m just guessing I’m using de facto in the correct context, cause it sounds cool right there.)
Enter the raging Tea Partyists. Led by our favorite US Representative Steve King and former GOP goober-natorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, a furious drive has arisen this year to vote out those rascal judges who overstepped their authority and ignored the will of the people. In Iowa, Supreme Court justices are up for a retention vote every few years (three of the nine at a time). Vander Plaats and his ilk are wild-eyed for voting them out, to teach the Supreme Court a lesson.
Well … since the constitutional convention question is also on the ballot .. these same anti-equality/pro-Taliban types who will take the time to turn the ballot over to vote NO NO NO on those judges, will also happily vote YES YES YES to convene a meeting to rip our evil equality-loving state constitution to shreds.
We’re going to have to count on the rational voters of the state to actually take the extra time to 1) vote to retain the judges and 2) vote against the convention idea. I’m afraid, given the volume and fervor of the anti- crowd this year, that might .. might .. be a tough hill to climb. We will see.
{Montana was also the place of another school that offered me $9000 per year for a full time teaching position.}