The number of ballot issues has been winnowed down, from 25 in April, to the four measures that will appear before voters in November. These four issues (with the exception of the constitutional convention call) have followed a difficult path of signature-gathering to make it this far. Here’s a breakdown of each issue, what they would do, and how they look on the ballot.
CI-105: Prevent Real Estate Transfer Tax
What it does: This would amend the Montana Constitution to prevent state or local governments from imposing any tax on the sale or transfer of real property. Though this tax doesn’t exist presently, it has been proposed, unsuccessfully, several times in the Legislature. If passed, it would take another constitutional amendment to repeal it.
Why? Backers say a real estate transfer tax (RETT) amounts to a “double tax” on transactions where property and income tax is already paid. If enacted, an RETT could stifle real estate sales, as well as agricultural or business property transfers.
Why not? Opponents say amending the constitution for a tax that doesn’t exist sets a bad precedent, making it the only tax specifically prevented in the document. It could also tie the hands of future generations attempting to fund public investments by excusing one group from taxation.
Who supports it? Realtor associations, agriculture and ranching associations, Montana Taxpayers Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Flathead Business & Industry Association, contractor and builder associations, among others.
Who opposes it? No formal opposition exists, but the MEA-MFT, a labor union representing government employees and educators, has come out against CI-105, calling it “at root an anti-government measure.”
Constitutional Convention Call No. 2
What it does: If a majority of voters choose “yes,” a constitutional convention would be convened to revise or totally overhaul the Montana Constitution, written in 1972. By law, this question goes on the ballot every 20 years. In 1990, 82 percent of voters rejected calling a constitutional convention. The U.S. Constitution would not be affected.
Why? Supporters of changing Montana’s constitution, broadly composed of some conservative and industry interests, say rights conferred by the document – like the provisions guaranteeing a “clean and healthful environment” or public education – are more like entitlements only available at the expense of taxpayers and the economy. Such provisions are too vague, and have allowed for court decisions harmful to business and mineral development.
Why not? If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. Opponents of changing the state Constitution say it could cost millions and could end up weakening rights certain Montanans cherish, like privacy and gun rights provisions significantly stronger than those in the federal Constitution. Government transparency and the balanced budget requirements are also vital to Montana’s wellbeing.
Who supports it? No organized campaigns exist on either side, but some Republican legislators and conservative scholars are calling for a constitutional convention.
Who opposes it? No formal organizations, but some Democrat legislators and some delegates who helped draft the 1972 document argue against changing it through a convention.
I-164: Reduce Interest Rates and Fees charged by Payday Lenders
What it does: If approved, this measure would revise state regulation of payday and title lenders, capping the annual interest rate they may charge at 36 percent. Under current law, such lenders can charge fees equaling a quarter of the loan, which can range from 300 to 650 percent. It would also prohibit these businesses from setting up other transactions to avoid the rate limit.
Why? Supporters of I-164 have unsuccessfully attempted, numerous times, to get similar measures past the Legislature, arguing that so-called “predatory” lenders with high interest rates trap borrowers in a cycle of debt from which it can be difficult to free themselves. They also note the 36-percent rate cap exists in several states, and was recently approved for military personnel by Congress.
Why not? Opponents of I-164 say the payday and car title lending industry offers a vital, short-term service. State law already caps payday loans at $300, making the maximum loan debt $375, lasting no longer than a month. I-164 would limit the lender to collecting a $3-fee on a 30-day, $100 loan. Enacting a 36-percent cap would put many lenders out of business entirely, thus cutting off options for borrowers.
Who supports it? Backers include AARP Montana, the MEA-MFT and AFL-CIO, Montana Catholic Conference, Montana Women’s Lobby and Montana Human Rights Network, among others.
Who opposes it? The short-term lending industry comprised of businesses based in the state and those outside Montana.
I-161: Revise Nonresident Big Game and Deer Hunting License Regulations
What it does: The measure seeks to improve Montanans’ hunting access by abolishing the 5,500 nonresident big game and deer licenses set aside for outfitters’ clients. Instead, a general lottery of 5,500 nonresident big game licenses would be held for hunters who don’t use outfitters. License fees for nonresident hunters would also increase: from $628 to $897 for big game combination, and from $328 to $527 for deer combination. These increases would help expand the state’s Block Management Program, where private landowners are paid to open their property to hunting, because that program is currently paid for by nonresident license fees. Such fees for Montana residents would not be affected.
Why? Supporters say since the inception of Outfitter Sponsored Licenses (OSLs) in 1987, guiding operations focused on exclusive land access and high kill rates have increased, to the detriment of “fair chase” hunting for Montana residents. I-161 doesn’t eliminate outfitters or guides, but simply allows hunters to choose to use them, while stabilizing funds for land access and habitat programs, and making hunting more equitable overall.
Why not? Opponents say I-161 will hurt the outfitting industry, a significant part of Montana’s tourism sector, causing job losses and revenue drops. It could also force Montana hunters to compete with more unsupervised nonresident hunters, and the fee increases will discourage nonresident hunters from traveling here, causing drops in revenue to wildlife management and land access programs.
Who supports it? The Public Land/Water Access Association, Montana Wildlife Federation and other state hunting groups.
Who opposes it? Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and Montana Stockgrowers Association.