The Flathead Valley’s Leading Independent Journal of Observation, Analysis, & Opinion

16 April 2009

I-155’s approval by voters underscores Democratic weakness

Initiative 155, the “Healthy Montana Kids Plan Act,” was approved by almost 70 percent of Montana’s voters last fall, a fact to which I’ve pointed previously. That victory, however, was not, as some I-155 supporters and Democrats suppose, a sign of strength. Instead, it was a confirmation of political weakness.

I-155’s supporters took the issue to the ballot because they could not muster the votes to move the measure through the 2007 session of the legislature. It was the same strategy employed in 2006, when, after an attempt to increase Montana’s minimum wage failed in the 2005 legislative session, supporters of the long overdue increase in Montana’s minimum wage took the matters directly to the voters. As would occur two years later with I-155, the measure was approved overwhelmingly, receiving 72.7 percent of the vote.

So, given the voters’ support for I-151 & I-155, how can those electoral victories be considered confirmations of weakness?

It’s simple. Democrats failed to gain control of the legislature, which is where health care and minimum wage legislation should be considered and approved. In 2006, Democrats lost the house by a single vote and won the senate by a single vote. In 2008, the result was even worse. The house was split 50-50, which meant a Democratic speaker — but Republicans gained control of the senate by four votes. And this happened despite legislative districts that were legally gerrymandered to pack as many Republicans into as few districts as possible in an attempt to secure an advantage for Democrats.

Why? Because having I-151 & I-155 on the ballot spared voters who agreed with the initiatives but otherwise leaned Republican the necessity of choosing between a Republican legislative candidate who opposed expanding health insurance for children or increasing the minimum wage and a Democratic candidate who supported CHIP and increasing the minimum wage.

Here’s a good example. In 2006, in House District 58 — the city of Laurel and the northwestern sprawl of Billings — Republican Krayton Kerns won by just three votes after a recount. I-151 carried HD-58 by 1,772 votes, winning in every precinct. Two years later, it was another close election, with Kerns prevailing by 26 votes after a recount. And I-155? It carried HD-58 by 1,470 votes, winning in every precinct.

Both initiatives were far more popular in HD-58 than Doc Kerns — but no one had to choose between Doc Kerns and his Democratic opponent on the basis of their positions on childrens’ health care or the minimum wage. They could vote for both Kerns and the initiatives, and that’s exactly what they did.

But what would have happened if I-151 and I-155 had not been on the ballot, and childrens’ health care and a higher minimum wage been an issue in the legislative contests? Might four of those voted for both Kerns and I-151 in 2006 felt strongly enough about the minimum wage to have voted for Kerns’ Democratic opponent if the initiative had not been on the ballot? And last fall, might 14 of those who voted for Kerns and I-155 have switched to his Democratic opponent had I-155 not been on the ballot? I think so — and I believe that those two Democratic initiatives cost Democrats HD-58 in both 2006 and 2008.

I-151 was self-implementing. I-155 was not. It authorized increasing the number of children eligible for health insurance programs, but because of a constitutional barrier, it could not fund the programs. Funding requires a majority in the legislature — and Democrats, partly because they put the issue on the ballot, instead of using it as a wedge issue in legislative elections, do not have the votes.

Democratic strategists and activists need to remember how they shot themselves in the foot with initiatives 151 and 155 before they start circulating petitions for an initiative regulating the payday loan industry in Montana.