Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.

 

31 October 2014

CI-45 — good constitutional amendments don’t pass by themselves

Constitutional Amendment 45 changes the name of State Auditor to Commissioner of Securities and Insurance. It’s a good amendment that voters should support — but no one’s campaigning for it, and according to the MSU-B poll (below), it’s down by 10 points. I don’t think it will pass. A similar measure failed in 2006 by a two to one margin.

But it should be approved. The proposed name more accurately describes the functions of the office, thus reducing confusion. Bureaucrats wouldn’t benefit from the name change, but the rest of us would.

In the 2013 Legislature, HB-79, which put the amendment on Tuesday’s ballot, passed the Montana House 97–1, with only the late David Halvorson (R-Sidney) opposed, and the Montana Senate 35–14. Most of the Senate’s Nays were cast by deeply conservative Republicans:

Nays on HB-79

State SenatorPartyCityDistrict
Keane, JimDButte38
Tropila, MitchDGreat Falls12
Arntzen, ElsieRBillings27
Boulanger, ScottRDarby44
Brenden, JohnRScobey18
Essmann, JeffRBillings28
Fielder, JenniferRThompson Falls7
Jackson, VerdellRKalispell5
Olson, AlanRRoundup23
Ripley, RickRWolf Creek9
Sonju, JonRKalispell4
Vincent, ChasRLibby1
Walker, EdwardRBillings29
Wittich, ArtRBozeman35

In 2006, opponents of CI-43, the father of CI-45, argued that the drafters of the 1972 Montana Constitution considered, but rejected, renaming the auditor’s office. That argument’s being made again. It’s just as nonsensical as before, but it may also prove just as emotionally and politically powerful as before.

In 2006, opponents of CI-43 also argued that changing the name would be expensive, requiring changes to websites, office supplies, and so forth. That argument’s being made again, the fact that the changes to websites and letterheads have already been made notwithstanding. It’s a bogus argument, but it may sway voters again.

So why the opposition this time around? I suspect it’s simply an opportunity for those who think the world is changing too rapidly and in ways they don’t like to say NO!.

But the opponents may prevail because no one is campaigning for CI-45. On this kind of issue, No Change is the default position of the voters. If no one urges them to vote for CI-45, and supplies compelling reasons to vote Yes, the amendment won’t pass.

(I’m aware of the undistinguished pro and con arguments in the 2014 Voter Information Pamphlet (PDF), but they’re no substitute for a campaign.

MSU-B poll on CI-45

msu_poll_ci-45