Guest Editorial: Constitutional Initiatives 2024
Author: J.B. Howick
Constitutional Initiatives 2024
On the November ballot, we will find three Montana state constitutional initiatives. These initiatives propose changes to the state constitution. Like so many others, I have my opinion about each initiative and I appreciate the chance to help with community discussions by advancing those opinions.
Ballot language: CI-126 amends the Montana Constitution to provide a top-four primary election. All candidates, regardless of political party, appear on one ballot. The four candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election. A candidate may list a political party preference, but a candidate isn’t required to be nominated by a political party. A candidate’s political party preference isn’t an endorsement by the political party. The legislature may require candidates to gather signatures up to five percent of the votes received by the winning candidate in the last election to appear on the ballot. All voters may vote for one candidate for each covered office. CI-126 applies to elections for governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, state representative, state senator, United States representative, and United States Senator.
I approve of this first initiative. I believe the political parties are against it. In a nutshell, during the primary election, every registered voter in Montana will see all of the candidates for the offices listed in the initiative regardless of party affiliation. Voters will have the privilege of voting for who they think will do the best job and the top four will advance to the national election. The parties claim this disenfranchises voters. Nothing could be further from the truth. This disenfranchises the parties and that's a good thing. Our nation isn't better because one party or another enjoys power, but because good people have been given the opportunity to represent us. This initiative promotes that ideal.
However, I am unhappy with the statement, "the legislature may require candidates [to] gather signatures up to five percent of the votes received by the winning candidate in the last election to appear on the ballot." If somebody wins by a landslide, that sets a very high bar for potential candidates in the next election that can unfairly exclude good people, especially independent candidates. This statement won't stop me from voting yes for this initiative, but I would very much like to see that condition removed from the state constitution in the future. It promotes party cronyism over public choice.
Ballot language: CI-127 amends the Montana Constitution to provide that elections for certain offices must be decided by majority vote as determined as provided by law rather than by a plurality or the largest amount of the votes. If it cannot be determined who received a majority of votes because two or more candidates are tied, then the winner of the election will be determined as provided by law. CI-127 applies to elections for governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, state representative, state senator, United States representative, United States Senator, and other offices as provided by law.
I am against this second initiative. I believe this is an effort to undercut the value of CI-126 by (a) requiring an unreasonably high bar for public selection of an office holder and (b) giving the state legislature the authority to decide who the winner is, ostensibly if there is a tie, but in practicality if that bar has not been met. To make a point, if the state legislature is majority Democratic Party and the popular winner was Republican who failed to reach the mandatory 50% vote majority threshold, it is likely that the losing Democrat candidate would be selected to hold office. No independent or third-party candidate under these conditions would ever win the office. To quote from a favorite movie, "The founding fathers believed the same thing about government. I figure their solution will work for the treasure too. Give it to the people." I believe CI-127 robs the people of the rights they would be granted in CI-126. Should a tie occur, a run-off vote should be held giving the decision to the voters, not the legislature.
CI-128 would amend the Montana Constitution to expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. It would prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability. It would also prohibit the government from denying or burdening access to an abortion when a treating healthcare professional determines it is medically indicated to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health. CI-128 prevents the government from penalizing patients, healthcare providers, or anyone who assists someone in exercising their right to make and carry out voluntary decisions about their pregnancy.
While there are good aspects of CI-128, I am against it. I am as frustrated by the abortion debate as I am the Marijuana debate. It's always one extreme or the other regardless the message promoted by the advocates of either side. In the Marijuana debate, the argument was the drug was necessary for medical purposes, but the result was open recreational use. In the abortion debate, we hear about cases of rape or incest, medical consultation and threat to the mother's life, etc., but it's either all government control or all individual choice. Never anything rational.
I believe that abortion should never be used as a form of birth control. So long as that fundamental threshold has been met, the choice about abortion should always rest with the mother with demonstrable consultation with medical professionals. If there's a problem and the choice is an educated choice, then I (as a part of We the People) have no right to deny another individual the right to make that choice. But below that threshold, where abortion is a mere convenience (and in concept not unlike recreational use of Marijuana) I believe We the People have the right to act on behalf of the rights of the unborn child.
Of the three initiatives, I'm still studying CI-128, but so far I've not found anything that would change my mind. Perhaps there is no social and political issue in my lifetime that will better reflect the character of our nation than how we balance the rights involved with abortion. I sincerely wish that someone would advance a law that tried to actually balance those rights rather than simply give them all to one or the other.
JB Howick
Townsend
