Welcome to Conservation Voters’ 2 0 0 3 2003 State Legislative Scorecard! Montanans need legislative leaders who know that the key to a vital economy is the protection State Legislative Scorecard and enhancement of the air we breathe, the water we drink, our public health, world class fish and wildlife resources, and our rights as citizens to participate in government.

Montana Conservation Voters’ mission is to elect conservation candidates, hold elected officials accountable, and educate and activate voters on a wide range of conservation and environmental issues. This scorecard is central to that mission. It tells you whether your legislators are in step with the sentiments of the vast majority of Montanans who deeply value our natural heritage and believe in responsible stewardship for future generations – or whether they are disregarding these core values. Read the scorecard, then take action to make your voice, and your vote, count!

This year, the MCV Legislative Scorecard includes a comparison of legislators’ votes this year to previous sessions, voting averages of legislators in various regions of the state, and an in-depth look at a new law that affects our right to register to vote and cast absentee ballots.

Post Office Box 63 • Billings, Montana 59103 www.mtvoters.org

... the non-partisan political voice of Montana’s conservation and environmental community. Welcome to Montana Conservation Voters’ 2 0 0 3 2003 State Legislative Scorecard! Montanans need legislative leaders who know that the key to a vital economy is the protection State Legislative Scorecard and enhancement of the air we breathe, the water we drink, our public health, world class fish and wildlife resources, and our rights as citizens to participate in government.

Montana Conservation Voters’ mission is to elect conservation candidates, hold elected officials accountable, and educate and activate voters on a wide range of conservation and environmental issues. This scorecard is central to that mission. It tells you whether your legislators are in step with the sentiments of the vast majority of Montanans who deeply value our natural heritage and believe in responsible stewardship for future generations – or whether they are disregarding these core values. Read the scorecard, then take action to make your voice, and your vote, count!

This year, the MCV Legislative Scorecard includes a comparison of legislators’ votes this year to previous sessions, voting averages of legislators in various regions of the state, and an in-depth look at a new law that affects our right to register to vote and cast absentee ballots.

Post Office Box 63 • Billings, Montana 59103 www.mtvoters.org

... the non-partisan political voice of Montana’s conservation and environmental community. VOTE ON TERM LIMITS IN 2004! Montana voters will have a chance to vote to extend legislative term limits in the 2004 election. With the passage of House Bill 277, sponsored by Representative (D-Huntley), a constitutional amendment will be placed on the ballot to extend 2003 State Legislative Scorecard legislative term limits from 8 years to 12 years. “It has become obvious that term limits are detrimental to the legislative process and the legislative institution,” said Lindeen. “The CONTENTS legislature is supposed to represent the people, but the people’s voices are being diminished because of term limits,” she continued. Message from the President ...... Page 1 Know the Score...... Page 2 Montana voters approved term limits in 1992, limiting legislators to 8 years in any 16 years as a state representative and 8 years in any Reapportionment ...... Page 2 16 years in the state senate. The proposed constitutional amendment extends this to 12 years in the House (6 terms) and 12 years in Conservation Votes That Count...... Page 3 the Senate (3 terms). House Voting Record ...... Page 8 Senate Voting Record ...... Page12 Of the 100 members of the Montana House of Representatives in 2003, only 33 served in the House in 1999, and 2 Representatives Special Feature: served previously in the Senate. Almost 2/3 of the House of Representatives have served in only 2 regular sessions. Of the 50 Montana Conservation Easements Under Attack; Ballot Measure Changes ...... Page 14 State Senators, only 17 also served in the Senete in 1999. Over 80% of Montana’s 2003 Senators had only one or two sesson’s worth A Snapshot of the Scores ...... Page 15 of experience in the Senate, through several had served previosly in the House. The Senate loses another 20% of its members due to Take Action – Contact your legislators...... Page 16 term limits in 2004. Term Limits ...... Page 17 A recent Lee Newspaper poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Research found that 46% of Montana voters support the ballot measure, Election Year Calendar ...... Page 17 while 48% oppose it. This is within the 4% margin of error and shows an even split among voters. Join Montana Conservation Voters...... Page 17 Lindeen will be featured in a public television program to discuss term limits, along with Senator Fred Thomas (R-Stevensville), a is the non-partisan political voice of Montana’s conservation and environmental community. former term limit proponent who has since decided they aren’t a good idea, and Senator (D-Helena) a former Montana MCV is dedicated to informing voters of the votes and actions of elected officials – from the Courthouse to Congress – affecting Secretary of State. Check your TV guide for local broadcast information. clean water and air, fish and wildlife, public health, open space and citizen participation in government. As a statewide membership organization, Montana Conservation Voters engages voters to support candidates who stand up for conservation values. Montana 2003 ELECTION CALENDAR – TAKE NOTE AND VOTE IN THIS YEAR’S MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS! Conservation Voters’ structure includes a board of directors, chapters in several Montana communities, a Political Action Committee August 11, 2003: Last day to register to vote for Primary Election. October 6, 2003: Last day to register to vote for General Election. to work effectively in elections, and a full time professional staff with offices in Billings, Livingston and Missoula. August 20, 2003: Primary Absentee Ballots available. October 20, 2003: General Election Absentee Ballots available. Montana Conservation Voters Board of Directors Co-President Howard Strause, Great Falls September 8, 2003: Noon deadline for requesting absentee ballot November 3, 2003: Noon deadline for requesting absentee ballot for Primary. for General Election. Co-President John Tubbs, Helena Secretary Molly Galusha, Missoula September 9, 2003: Primary Election. November 4, 2003: General Election. Treasurer Virginia Court, Billings (also Yellowstone County Chapter Representative) Directors: Corky Clairmont, Pablo Julia Page, Gardiner Pat Sweeney, Billings Yes! I want to help protect Montana’s natural resources and support conservation Joan Montagne, Bozeman candidates – from the Courthouse to Congress. Stan Frasier, Helena Butch Waddill, Florence Enclosed are my membership dues of: Laura Stafford, Helena ____$25 Individual Member ____$50 Supporting Member ____$250 Contributing Member Mary Ellen Wolfe, Bozeman, Gallatin-Park County Chapter Representative ____$35 Household Member ____$100 Patron Member ____$500 Sustaining Member Montana Conservation Voters Staff ____$1,000 Benefactor ____$10 Living Lightly/Student ____$______Other Ben Birdsill, Webmaster, Data Base Administrator, Billings Monika Heinbaugh, Organizer/Program Associate, Billings Kelley Hubbard, Organizer/Program Associate, Missoula Name(s):______Email:______Tammy Josti, Office Assistant, Billings Theresa Keaveny, Executive Director, Billings Address:______Phone:______Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, Program Director, Livingston City______State:______Zip:______

Box 63 Box 474 Box 9335 ___ Visa ___ Mastercard Card # ______Exp. Date______Billings, MT 59103 Livingston, MT 59047 Missoula, MT 59807 Make Checks payable to MCV. 406/254-1593 FAX 406/254-1609 Phone/FAX 406/222-9093 Phone/FAX 406/542-1055 ___ I want to volunteer. Let me know how I can work to elect conservation candidates.

** Contributions to Montana Conservation Voters support political action and are not tax deductible.** [email protected] www.mtvoters.org Clip and return to: Montana Conservation Voters, Box 63, Billings, MT 59103 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 17 CONTACT YOUR NOW THAT YOU KNOW THE SCORECARDDear Scorecard READER Reader, MONTANA LAWMAKERS SCORE, TAKE ACTION! Welcome to the 2003 Montana Conservation Voters State Legislative Scorecard, designed to help you identify those legislators who strongly value conservation principles and Montana’s right For complete contact information on all of your Montana Conservation Voters is committed to impacting the to a clean and healthful environment. Just as importantly, this scorecard identifies those Montana Legislators, use the Legislator Lookup on political process to make sure that legislators make decisions legislators who not only do not support protection of our air and water, wildlife and open the MCV website: mtvoters.org/leg_lookup.html space, but who also are willing to blatantly disregard the voice of the voters. that enhance and protect clean air and water, public health, Governor fish and wildlife, forests and our constitutional right to a clean A consistent theme that ran through this session was the belief of some legislators that Governor’s Office and healthful environment - values held in high regard by Montana voters don’t know what they are doing and cannot be trusted to help set PO Box 200801, State Capitol Montanans. Take action to make a lasting difference for the Montana’s future course. Over a dozen bills were introduced that would have Helena, MT 59620-0801 environment! overturned voter-passed initiatives or make it harder for Montanans to speak through (406) 444-3111 the initiative process. Attorney General Mike McGrath 1. Know the score and contact your legislators. Call, Backed by the mining, game farm and tobacco industry, legislators said we had been PO Box 201401 write or email your legislators to thank them for votes “hoodwinked” and were “confused” when we passed reforms of game farms that threaten our wild, Helena, MT 59620-1401 in support of the conservation community’s position. prized game herds. Other legislators said they had to overturn voter-passed initiatives in order to “protect the minority from (406) 444-2026 Legislators who stand up for the environment deserve [email protected] the tyranny of the majority.” And of course there was Rep. Cindy Younkin’s now-famous statement that “Just because it was our appreciation. Ask for explanations from passed by the will of the people doesn’t make it right.” Secretary of State Bob Brown legislators who voted against conservation priorities. PO Box 202801, State Capitol The Montana State Legislature meets for regular Fortunately, voters refused to be silenced on these important issues, and the majority of legislators showed their respect for Helena, MT 59620-2801 session in Helena from early January to the end of the will of the people by defeating these attacks. (406) 444-2034 April in odd-numbered years. Visit the MCV web [email protected] site at www.mtvoters.org or the Legislature’s home Take the bill to overturn the 1998 voter-approved ban on new cyanide heap leach mines. The law protects Montana’s wells, lakes and prized trout stems – like the Big Blackfoot – from this destructive practice. Montana Conservation Voters worked page at http://leg.state.mt.us for their contact State Auditor John Morrison with other environmental and conservation groups to stop the attack on this voter-approved measure, and flooded legislators PO Box 4009 information now that legislators are at home. with phone calls and emails until the bill died. This was on the heels of the successful campaign to stop a repeal of the Game Helena, MT 59604-4009 Farm initiative. We prevailed again when a bill to severely limit the initiative process was killed by a narrow margin. We take (406) 444-2040 2. Share this Scorecard and publicize votes. pride in how effectively Montanans stood up for their rights, and thank all of you who called, emailed, traveled to Helena or [email protected] Complimentary copies of this scorecard can be visited with legislators over transmittal to make your voice heard. Superintendent of Public Instruction viewed or ordered at www.mtvoters.org.To host a Linda McCulloch gathering to discuss scorecard results or do publicity Not as fortunately, some very bad bills passed. Thanks to the 2003 Legislature, coal companies were put in charge of when, PO Box 202501 and letters to the editor, contact us. how and what they will reclaim after mining is over, freeing them to leave deeper scars on the land. Montanans who treasure Helena, MT 59620-2501 the character of their communities are left with fewer tools to work with when out-of-state developers arrive to exploit their (406) 444-3095 neighborhoods. Citizens who want to protect their clean air, water and property will now have to pay more to exercise their [email protected] 3. State legislative reapportionment will change house rights in court. As demonstrated in Libby and East Helena, those who suffer the most from pollution are often the least likely and senate districts in many parts of the state to be able to afford fighting big polluters. The legislature even made it harder for citizens to vote. Sen. beginning with the 2004 election. Attend an MCV 511 Hart Senate Office Bldg. meeting in your area to discuss reapportionment, But let’s be clear about one point. Many of these bills passed by narrow margins, with strong opposition voiced by legislators Washington, D.C. 20510 term limits and the 2004 election. who stand up for their environment and constituents. (202) 224-2651 (800) 332-6106 (from MT) The 2004 elections are a great opportunity to correct the misguided priorities in Helena by electing a conservation majority (Fax) (202) 224-4700 4. Vote for pro-conservation candidates. The best way that respects the will of Montana voters. to show your approval or disapproval of legislators’ Sen. votes. Contact us about endorsed candidates and how 187 Dirksen Senate Office Building This scorecard gives you the information you need to start that process now. Find out how legislators voted on issues Washington D.C. 20510 to help. important to you. Use this information to hold legislators accountable for their actions. Thank legislators who have shown (202) 224-2644 a respect for the voters and who have stood up for Montana values. Give your friends, neighbors and relatives this information. 1-800-344-1513 5. Join Montana Conservation Voters, the non-partisan And vote for conservation candidates. Together we can be a voice and catalyst for positive change in Montana. (202) 224-8594 fax political voice of Montana’s conservation and Rep. environmental community. Make your voice and your 516 Cannon House Office Building vote count. Work to hold elected officials Washington, DC, 20515 accountable, and support conservation candidates. Ph: 202-225-3211 Howard Strause, Co-President, Montana Conservation Voters Fax: 202-225-5687

16 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 1 NEW LEGISLATIVE KNOW THE SCORE! Scorecard Snapshot DISTRICTS Montana State Legislature Scores 2003 2001 1999 When you vote, you exercise one of the most important rights – and Score avg 42.7% 42.3% 42.7% COMING SOON responsibilities – you have as a citizen. But it doesn’t end there. Democrat score avg 85% 85% 83% TO YOUR AREA Candidates may make lots of promises to get your vote. Did they Republican score avg 8% 13% 17% keep them? Did they vote the way you expected them to, or want Senate: 2003 2001 1999 House: 2003 2001 1999 them to? Every decade following the federal decennial Score avg 40% 39% 42% Score avg 44% 44% 43% census, Montana establishes new Democrat score avg 78% 76% 82% Democrat score avg 88% 89% 83% congressional and legislative districts. The This Scorecard helps highlight the real stewards of Montana’s natural Republican score avg 13% 15% 20% Republican score avg 5% 12% 15% Montana Constitution provided that this resources, those who see Montana’s economic future inextricably redistricting is to be done not by the legislature entwined with the health and diversity of her clean air and water, fish County Comparisons but by a 5-person citizen member Commission. On February 5, 2003, this and wildlife, local communities, and outdoor recreational Comparison of delegation voting records for the eight most heavily populated counties for 2003, 2001 and Commission, which had been appointed opportunities. It separates the champions of Montana’s rich heritage 1999. The comparisons reflect the MCV scores for all legislators in that county, using the same districts for during the 1999 legislative session, adopted its from those who give lip service to caring about our environment, or each session, not just for legislators who have been in all three sessions. final Statewide Redistricting Plan. no service at all. Commissioners submitted the plan to County Comparisons Senate House Secretary of State Bob Brown as provided in County 2003 Avg 2001 Avg 1999 Avg 2003 Avg 2001 Avg 1999 Avg In developing this Scorecard, MCV consulted with various the Montana Constitution, but Secretary Yellowstone 28% 27% 27% 42% 43% 42% conservation and public interest groups to help identify a selection of Brown refused to accept the plan based on a Missoula 62% 62% 69% 68% 78% 71% bill passed hurriedly by the Republican- legislative proposals that: Cascade 71% 61% 64% 61% 57% 58% dominated legislature and signed by Governor a) Are important to Montana Conservation Voters members; Martz the previous day. This bill, HB 309, Flathead 6% 10% 27% 16% 12% 20% b) Reflect a broad cross-section of issues significant to various changed the allowable population deviation Gallatin 60% 36% 44% 41% 40% 39% among legislative districts from the five conservation groups; Lewis and Clark 58% 50% 45% 55% 44% 49% percent criterion adopted in 2000 and used by c) Show a clear choice by legislators for or against a conservation Ravalli 0% 7% 14% 9% 25% 25% the Commission during its two-year planning position; Silver Bow 33% 42% 40% 61% 72% 51% process to one percent. d) Reflect a certain level of debate, requiring potentially difficult choices. Most encouraging and disappointing scorecard changes Representative HDCity % +/- Secretary Brown instead filed a complaint for Below is a snapshot of the voting record for legislators Clark, Paul (D) 72 Trout Creek 24% declaratory judgment requesting the court to determine the constitutionality and statutory We also included votes on certain resolutions on federal issues for whose MCV voting record changed at least 10 percentage Witt, John (R) 89 Carter 14% validity of the Statewide Redistricting Plan. A informational purposes, but did not include those votes in legislators’ points from 2001 to 2003. Those with the greatest change Wanzenried, David (D) 68 Missoula 12% hearing for partial summary judgment on the scores since they have no force of law. Rather, they set a climate for (at least 20 percentage points) are in bold. A positive Shockley, Jim (R) 61 Victor 12% complaint was held May 15, 2003 at the First dialogue and can influence the officials who receive them. number means an increase in the score, a negative number Jacobson, Hal (D) 54 Helena 11% Judicial District Court in Helena, and means a decrease. For example, “Sen. John Cobb, 48%” Lindeen, Monica (D) 7 Huntley 10% supplemental briefs were requested by May Keane, Jim (D) 36 Butte -11% 29, 2003. However the court rules, the issue This scorecard is a key indicator of a legislator’s support for illustrates that his MCV score increased from 33% in 2001 will likely be appealed to the Montana conservation issues. Other factors include committee votes, floor to 81% in 2003, a change of 48%. Brown, Roy (R) 14 Billings -11% Supreme Court. The Commission believes it speeches and motions, leadership in committee or on the floor or in Bookout-Reinicke, Sylvia 71(R) Alberton -12% has fulfilled its constitutional and statutory Voting score changes > 10% caucus, and work behind the scenes to kill or pass legislation. We’ve Fisher, Stanley (R) 75 Bigfork -12% obligations, and members expect a final Senator SD Town % +/- Fuchs, Daniel (R) 15 Billings -12% decision on the Plan effective for the 2004 noted some instances where actions, besides floor votes, made a Cobb, John (R) 25 Augusta 48% Hedges, Donald (R) 97 Antelope -12% election. difference in the outcome of legislation and showed contradictions in Elliott, Jim (D) 36 Trout Creek 28% Jackson, Verdell (R) 79 Kalispell -12% legislators’ actions. Kitzenberg, Sam (R) 48 Glasgow 24% You can find the Plan adopted in February Mood, Doug (R) 58 Seeley Lake -12% Johnson, Royal C (R) 5 Billings 20% 2003 and access detailed maps of the new state Olson, Alan (R) 8 Roundup -12% Thanks to Anne Hedges, Patrick Judge and Jeff Barber of the legislative districts at: Sprague, Mike (R) 6 Billings 12% Lawson, Bob (R) 80 Whitefish -12% Montana Environmental Information Center; Janet Ellis of Montana McGee, Dan (R) 11 Laurel -12% Galvin-Halcro, Kathleen (D)48 Great Falls -14% Audubon; John Wilson of Montana Trout Unlimited; Michele http://www.leg.state.mt.us/content/committees Mahlum, Dale E (R) 35 Missoula -12% Gallus, Steve (D) 35 Butte -18% /interim/2001_2002/dist_apport/FEBfinal.inc. Reinhart and Cody Ferguson of Northern Plains Resource Council; Glaser, Bill (R) 8 Huntley -13% Lehman, Larry (R) 87 Power -18% Don Judge of the Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club; David Keenan, Bob (R) 38 Bigfork -14% For more information, contact Susan Byorth Rome, Allen (R) 56 Garrison -18% Ponder and Matt Leow of Montana Public Interest Research Group; Harrington, Dan W (D) 19 Butte -20% Fox, Legislative Services Division, at Schrumpf, Clarice (R) 12 Billings -18% 406.444.3064. Bob Throssell of the Montana Wildlife Federation; and Tim Davis Mangan, Jeff (D) 23 Great Falls -44% Matthews, Gary (D) 4 Miles City -20% of the Montana Smart Growth Coalition for their assistance. bold = changes of 20% or more from last session Lenhart, Ralph (D) 2 Glendive -30%

2 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 15 CONSERVATION C-37 AND C-38: CONSERVATION VOTES THAT COUNT EASEMENTS ATTACKED THE SAGA CONTINUES Description of Votes Used in Montana Conservation Voters 2003 Legislative Scorecard CHANGES TO ELECTION LAWS elections will be known. The number of provisional ballots thrown The 2003 saw unprecedented attacks on For almost a century, Montanans have taken pride in their right to out could well determine the outcome of a close election. Montana’s most important open space preservation tool: make laws and amend the Constitution through citizen initiatives. The 2003 Legislature passed a sweeping reform of the Montana voting process. While much of it is based on new requirements in perpetual conservation easements. This was the first session They have used the process judiciously and sparingly – in the 97 There were three primary areas of opposition to HB 190, the federal Help America Vote Act, some provisions go far beyond such bills have appeared, all coming from the conservative years since citizens acquired this right, there have passed fewer Montana’s proposal to implement HAVA, and in all three areas, federal law. legislators who usually fight for private property rights. After than 50 laws as a result of citizen initiative drives. Montana went beyond federal requirements. Attempts to delete much hard work by land trusts, conservation lobbyists, and the three stricter requirements failed in both committees as well as Federal Election Law Changes of 2002 affected state agencies, all of these pieces of legislation died in In November 2002, however, Montana voters passed in the House and Senate, with virtually all Republicans voting to committee. Constitutional Amendment 37 and Constitutional Amendment Two years after the infamous Presidential election of 2000, keep the stricter requirements and Democrats voting to make state 38 (C-37 and C-38), changing the signature gathering Congress passed legislation seeking to improve election law consistent with federal law. HJR 7 (Representative Debby Barrett, R-Dillon). The basic distribution requirements for Constitutional and statutory administration. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) premise behind this study resolution was that perpetual initiatives from legislative district to counties. These changes give requires states and municipalities to meet certain standards in Identification easements do not comply with Montana’s Constitution. a disproportionate amount of political power to the few and conducting Federal elections. It provides for new voter registration Under Montana’s new law, all voters must show a copy of violate the principle of “one person, one vote.” They also make it and identification requirements, and calls for states to develop a appropriate identification to vote. Absentee voters will have to mail HB 725 (Representative Rick Maedje, R-Fortine). HB 725 more difficult to qualify an initiative for the ballot. single, uniform, centralized, computerized voter registration list, the identification in with their ballot. Acceptable identification would have effectively eliminated conservation easements in the assign a unique identifier to each legally registered voter, and includes a copy of a current and valid photo identification, or a state by significantly increasing the costs of designing and C-37 and C-38 were not the result of a grassroots citizen implement a reasonable system of file maintenance to remove copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government developing easements, prohibiting landowners from receiving movement but were referred to the ballot by the Legislature at the ineligible voters. check or document, or Montana’s voter registration confirmation federal tax benefits from donated easements, making each behest of special interest lobbyists who have opposed several which will be sent to all registered voters notifying them of their conservation easement transaction subject to governmental initiatives passed by voters and saw C-37 and C-38 as the means In addition, state voting systems must permit voters to verify their new districts. Rules currently being drafted by the Secretary of review and approval or disapproval, and more. to make it harder for citizens to use the ballot for initiatives and selections on the ballot, notify them of overvotes (voting for two State’s office will determine what will constitute acceptable constitutional amendments. different people) and permit them to change their votes before identification. SB 251 (Senator Keith Bales, R-Otter). SB 251 would have casting their ballot, as well as create a permanent paper record that restricted habitat protection programs administrated by These amendments violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. can be manually audited. Other HAVA provisions address types of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), to using short-term Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1969, invalidated the Absentee ballot request collection voting machines, access for the disabled, alternative language HB 190 as amended requires a standardized form for the absentee leases, rather than perpetual easements. county distribution requirement for petitions in an Illinois law accessibility, and create a new Election Assistance Commission saying, “This law applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely ballot request, and allows a third party to deliver absentee ballot (EAC) that will administer HAVA and eventually assume certain requests to the election administrator if the party provides the Conservation easements give private landowners an important settled counties and populous counties alike, contrary to the duties related to elections that were previously under the authority tool to use to protect their property from residential subdivision. constitutional themes of equality among citizens in the exercise of electors with receipts for the requests. This latter provision, of the Federal Elections Commission. Montana’s Open-Space Land and Voluntary Conservation political rights. The idea that one group can be granted greater however, was rendered moot by passage of HB 563 (Laszloffy, R- Easement Act is one of the state’s most important land use tools voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote Laurel) which prohibited virtually all third-party collection of for the conservation of open space, wildlife habitat, our bias of our representative government.” Montana’s Election Law Changes – HB 190 absentee ballot requests. Third parties may include candidates, agricultural heritage, and rural landscapes. Since the Act passed Supported by the Secretary of State and county election political parties, nursing homes or anyone who offers to deliver in 1975, it has allowed Montana’s landowners to permanently In 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill cited this same administrators, the Montana legislature passed HB 190, sponsored another voter’s absentee ballot request to an election administrator. protect more than 1.1 million acres, with 780,000 acres decision in finding Idaho’s geographic distribution requirement by Rep. Cindy Younkin, R-Bozeman, which requires ALL voters, protected by Montana’s private land trusts, 257,000 acres with unconstitutional in Idaho Coalition United for Bears v Cenarrusa. not just those who registered by mail and didn’t show appropriate Absentee voting period FWP, and 142,000 acres with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Idaho statute is similar to the Montana amendments in that, identification at that time - as required by HAVA - to show an Montana has reduced the minimum days available for absentee Service. in addition to a total number of signatures equal to 6 percent of identification to vote. While perhaps well intentioned, the law voting from 45 to 30 days, and increased the number of days before the state’s registered voters at the time of the last general election, multiplies the universe of voters who must show identification to the election when the Voter Information Pamphlet is available Find out if your legislators support the ability of landowners to proponents had to gather signatures from 6 percent of the vote by more than three or four times, thus greatly expanding the from 2 weeks to 30 days. Many organizations unsuccessfully urged adopt conservation easements, and make your views known. It’s registered voters in 22 of the state’s 44 counties. likely number of provisional ballots – those ballots that may the legislature to maintain the current 45 day absentee voting the only way we can ensure that future attacks on Montana’s ultimately get thrown out because the voter did not provide a period. If ballots are sent out more than 30 days before an election, conservation easement laws meet the same fate as the ones Some citizen groups are so concerned that the changes made by proper identification when voting. You can expect long lines at the which is at the discretion of the election administrator, the introduced in the 2003 Legislature. C-37 and C-38 will make it so difficult for the public to voting booths – unless every voter comes prepared with valid administrator will include a notice that the Voter Information participate in their government that they intend to challenge the identification. Even long-time voters may end up casting Pamphlet will be provided as soon as it is available. amendments in court. For more information about these provisional ballots – votes which may be thrown out if valid Contributed by Janet Ellis, Montana Audubon amendments or the potential lawsuit, contact MontPIRG at identification is not subsequently provided. www.pirg.org/montpirg or MCV’s web site at www.mtvoters.org. The success of these voting changes will depend largely on the rules now being developed by the Secretary of State to implement A provisional ballot will only be counted as a valid vote if the the provisions of HB 190, and the staffs of county election Contributed by David Ponder, Montana Public Interest Research elector provides the appropriate identification to the election Group and Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, Montana Conservation Voters administrators who now have their own burden – at their request administrator by 5 pm the day after election. A mailed – of asking every single voter for identification. The rulemaking identification must be postmarked by that time as well, leading to starts in May 2003, and is open to the public. a potential delay of several days before the outcome of close

14 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 3 13 g y ton er ton ton y y g g g ue an son son g ila er leton g y g y lor lor p eat p an an ra uires y p ebhardt y p q oole ook ohnson Senator Anderson Bales Barkus Black Bohlin Butcher Cobb Cocchiarella Coone Cromle Curtiss DePratu Ellin Elliott Es G Glas Grimes Hansen Harrin J Keenan Kitzenber Laible Mahlum Man McCarth McGee McNutt Nelson O'Neil Pease Perr Roush R Schmidt Shea S S Sta Stonin Stor Tash Ta Tester Thomas T Tro Wh Z

0% 9% 9% 0% 0% ------

64% 13% 91% 27% 18% 56% 33% 82% 11% 56% 89% 55% 11% 18% 45% 64% 55% 89% 22% 36% 64% 18% 67%

100% 100% 100% 1999 Score ^ Score ^

6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 7%

------

73% 20% 33% 73% 60% 13% 13% 87% 33% 20% 20% 31% 94% 67% 12% 57% 14% 80% 40% 87% 88% 33% 87% 73% 88% 100% 100% 2001 Score ^ Score ^ 0% 0% 6% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13% 69% 13% 81% 69% 81% 88% 88% 67% 53% 44% 19% 50% 60% 50% 87% 38% 88% 93% 31% 19% 81% 71% 94% 94%

ection 2003 100% 100% 100% 100%

Score

Prot Oppose ANWR Oppose ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

22

SJR

udy

St Removes Wilderness Removes ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 19

SJ R

Takings ility ility

------r Fac r + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 397

Siting Act Siting

ation Cripples Majo Cripples ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E E E

HB

443

ne Reclam ne

Mi

Reduces Metal Reduces ation ------+ + + + + + + + +

SB 366

Reclam

Reduces Coal Reduces ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E

HB 373

Montana Conservation Voters

Landowner Protection Landowner Coal Bed Methane Bed Coal ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E

SB 240

Resource Water Resource Destroys Outstanding Outstanding Destroys ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E

HB

467

ts MEPA Remedies MEPA ts Cu ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 350

ection

Prot Removes Habitat Removes ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E

SB 392 Fisheries Protection Act Protection Fisheries ------

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB ens Growth Plans Growth ens 412

eak W ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 326 otes Growth Plan Growth otes

om Pr ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E E SB 293 eading eading r r T nd nd OUR O C T TS IGH N R IZE T ION ING CI T T OTECT The first of three game farm this session, billsThe first of three introduced HB by Rep.One in a handful of bad bills introduced Olson Alan en. Shea Senators (D-Butte) and a new initiative were Dan repeal eflected opposition to canned hunts. HB 379 passed 2 equest an injunction against the permittee, intended to a provision esponded in force against the bill.esponded in force have Realizing supporters didn’t but was sent back to committee after opposition from tremendous Montana residents; the bill never advanced to the Senate. Two and buy-out also some formother House bills of repeal proposing failed to pass committee. is 2 The House vote featured 379 (Ripley, game farms would have allowed Creek) R-Wolf shooting of penned elk and deer commercial operators to resume the transferand allowed and sale of game farms and their animals, banned under Initiative 143,activities which were by approved voters in 2000. wild The initiative was an attempt to protect wasting disease, diseases such as chronic animals from and r (R-Roundup), HB 437 is perhaps the flagship of industry’s series of bills to make citizen challenges to State difficult. actions more As drafted, challenging certain anyone state permits to it required r citizensforce and organizations challenging permits to post a significant bond. Although the Senate deleted this requirement, it added other amendments that make it even difficult for more themselvespeople to protect by requiring citizens to first challenge the constitutionality of a particular statute, even if the challenge to a particular relating law. Theisn’t challenges bill also forces to be filed in the county the activity where occurs, even though many against the State.challenges are will It states that the legislature (passed 53-47). Conservation community position: oppose. Game Farm Repeal – HB 379 Game Farm CU PR Conservation assaulted by a barrage of industry- were interests supported bills attempting to limit the ability of citizens to use the courts themselves, to protect their families and communities the law. to follow failure the State’s from The attack was outlined in a January by an oil and tobacco industry 2003 memo provided Trade Environmental lobbyistWestern to the lobbyist for the Association, group. an anti-environmental The industry proposal intended to make citizen challenge difficult of state decisions more and prohibitively costly, and to elevate certain property rights everythingabove else. HB 437 – Restricting court access and challenging the Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment r the votes to win on Senate floor, Sen. Shea her decided to drop bill. However, she and her supporters said that they plan to move forward initiative drive to put I-137 back with their own on the ballot. Legislators in support appearing conference of at the press S McGee (R-Laurel),Thomas (R-Stevensville), Fred Cocchiarella (D-Missoula); Vicki Gary and Representatives Forrestor (D-Billings), Alan Olson (R-Roundup) and Jim Keane (D-Butte). SS eading eading, r CE r O nd nd 2003 State Legislative Scorecard IVE PR T IA eading. House 2 T r eading (failed 22-27) votes r nd nd N INI IZE T S ON CI CK A T As proposed, Sen. bill, Debbie Shea’s SB 436, would have ls, Montana across letters and emails to legislators from oject Vote Smart,Vote oject of the interests and individuals representing l T akeside). open to the public. Their meetings are enate after a successful motion to place the bill, which had been or more information about this advisoryor more committee or the HB yanide ban, by to undermine the process but also with a proposal epeal two citizen-passed initiatives affecting game farms and a epealed the ban on new open-pit cyanide-leach mines. Citizens where it passed 53-47.where Conservation community position: oppose. The bill was heavily amended in the Senate some but to address not all of MCV’s concerns. Signed into law. defending both the process, which has been available to Montanans since 1906, and the decisions made by voters. Many at being told their initiative vote communicated their displeasure was unimportant or wrong. can visit MCV’s web site for You information on the outcome, for each legislative district, of the game farm and cyanide initiatives. Please also see the article on page 14 about the impact of Constitutional Amendment 37 and Constitutional Amendment 38, passed by voters in November 2002, collected. are initiative petition signatures which change how In January 2003, Secretary also appointed a of State Bob Brown compliance HAVA 20-member committee to develop Montana’s plan. It includes several county election administrators, Voters, organizations including the LeagueWomen of AARP, and Pr civil rights, the disabled, and American Indians, as well as Sen. Carolyn Squires (D-Missoula) and Rep. Bernie Olson (R- L F 190 rulemaking process, contact Secretary of State Bob Brown’s office at 406.444.2034. in the Scorecard is HB 190 2 The House vote featured A this session with not only confronted attempts to Montanans were r c which initiatives get placed on the ballot. Conservationists prevailed, thanks to effective organizing by MCV and other groups and a dramatic public response, of phone with many hundreds ca Undermining the citizen initiative process – HB 719 HB 719 (A. Olson, R-Roundup) would have significantly impacted the citizen initiative process: the moving it proposed petition submission date back two months, in petition resulting supporters at the Primary no longer being able to gather signatures Election, gathering and most election signature occurring in winter. subjective and potentially more It added much confusing language to the petition, a simplified law allowing changed current title, an affidavit stating whether the signature- and required by the Supreme Court rejected in was paid - a provision gatherer Colorado. and died in the The bill passed the House narrowly S killed in a Senate committee, 2 on Cyanide Ban Repeal – SB 436 r (passed 52-47) and Senate 2 featured. Conservation community position: oppose. 4 5 eading vote on r rd eading (failed 22-26). Conservation r IFE nd eading vote (passed 49-48). Conservation r rd WILDL eading (passed 27-23), and House 3 r rd omoted by the Montana Smart Coalition, Growth SB 293 heat, funding D-Bozeman) to designate and provide proposed As proposed, SB 326 (McGee, R-Laurel) would drastically This bill, by Rep. sponsored John Sinrud (R-Bozeman), would Pr This bill, by Rep. sponsored Creek), (D-Trout Clark Paul oposals wo of the featured bills reflect an attempt by the conservation billswo of the featured reflect enate 3 annot condition land use decisions solely on compliance with a equired to pay the developerequired for conditions placed on the community position: oppose. The Senate Local Government Committee indefinitely postponed the bill. change Montana’s growth policy growth law,change Montana’s severely undermining attempts by local to adopt land use plans that help communities to appropriate areas. growth direct In its final form, the law states policythat a growth is not a regulatory document and jurisdictions c policy;growth policy only a growth it allows to cover part of a planning jurisdiction; and it eliminates the one-year time frame for that complyadoption of subdivision regulations with a growth policy. This bill had originally making the information to proposed be included policy in a growth discretionary, but opponents were policy the growth requirements.able to reinstate are featured Votes S ‘vestedhave given developers property a right’ immediately upon submission of a subdivision proposal. Local would be governments r proposal, effectively crippling ability local government’s to regulate land use. House 3 the FishWildlifeproposed and Act, Protection which recognizes the importance fish and wildlife of healthy populations and directs that may otherwisethe state to mitigate permits for projects community position: support. Billings), to review the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. SB 326 – Weakening of Growth Plans of Growth Weakening SB 326 – Property Rights for Subdivision Vested HB 712 – Pr PlansSB 293 – Growth for Fast-Growing Communities FISH AND the last decade,In piecemeal fashion over many of Montana’s laws have been weakened. protection substantive environmental T fish and wildlifecommunity to protect after the 2001 Legislature the abilityeffectively such of State removed agencies to require Act. Policy under the Montana Environmental protections The FishWildlife and Act HB 671 – Protection (W communities. for development plans in fast-growing of growth cities and counties to plan together fast growing This bill directed have adequate buildable land and that towns to ensure a 20- over growth infrastructure for projected to efficiently provide years period. Senate 2 free conference committee (passed 58-42). conference free Conservation community position: oppose. Signed into law. eading r rd Montana Conservation Voters eading (passed r rd eading on motion to accept r eading (passed 56-43) and Senate nd r nd eading (passed 31-19). Conservation r nd ANNING eading (passed 27-23) votes featured. Conservation r en. SB 410, introduced (R-Proctor) Taylor Mike which One of several bills to stifle citizen attempts to protect SB 298 (Thomas, R-Stevensville) that would have required S ther proposals focused on propertyther proposals rights, affordable housing, AND USE PL egislators introduced severalegislators introduced bills this session to amend statutes enate amendments (passed 60-40); Senate vote is 3 nd

eceiving an injunction against extractive industry. SB 410

community position: oppose. The House Judiciary Committee tabled the bill. 30-20). Conservation community position: oppose.Judiciary Committee tabled the bill. The House themselves though the courts, HB 700 (Brueggeman, R-Polson) hinders citizens’ ability to challenge the operation of air-polluting the automatic stay when a permit is facilities by removing appealed, and requiring a significant bond. Described by the Montana Legislative Legal Council as unconstitutional, the bill is targeted at citizens such as those who appealed an air permit want six large diesel locomotives operating 24 because they didn’t hours a day next to their house. It would encourage the State to dischargeissue general permits air and groundwater under which companies can begin discharging even the site application before has been submitted. House 2 2 community position: oppose. Signed into law. lawsuits challenging State permits be filed in the environmental county action would occur. in which the proposed Currently, citizens can also challenge laws in Lewis County, and Clark the seat of State government. This is simply an attempt to put local on local developments judges to allow evenpressure if the permits flawed.are Senate 2 citizens a bond from that courts seeking and proposed require r for waiving the bond,contained no provisions eliminated the law limiting bonds to $50,000,current and established a minimum bond of $10,000. Senate The featured vote is 3 interpret Montanans’ Constitutional rights, yet another reflecting attempt to undermine our Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. In addition, this bill is retroactive, so any currently being appealed willpermits have to comply that are with these changes. House vote is 2 S (passed 33-17). Conservation community position: oppose. Signed into law. HB 700 – Bonding, stays and general permitting SB 298 – Court venue SB 410 – Citizen bonding L L plans, growth governing formerly plans. as comprehensive known O transportation, zoning districts and subdivisions. of the Three significant in this Scorecard. featured more bills are In addition, the conservation to community convinced the legislature undertake an interim study, HJ 37, by Rep. (R- Noennig Mark Requires Citizen Bonding Citizen Requires ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 410 Changes Court Venue Court Changes ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 298 Requires Citizen Bonding Citizen Requires ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB 700

stricts Court Access Court stricts Re ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB 437

Initiatives strict Citizen Citizen strict

------Re + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E HB 719 T T T T T T T T T T Term Limited e g y y y p ll y City e s s s s s ow ow y y y ed e Grass p g g g g g g fr usta g itefish Timber Sand fork fork g eat Falls eat Falls eat Falls eat Falls out Creek g g g tter Deer Lod O Kalis Shelb Billin Wini Au Missoula Helena Billin Fortine Wh Missoula Tr Bi Roundu Huntle Clanc Harlem Butte Billin Bi Glas Victor Missoula Gr Anaconda Laurel Sidne Medicine Lake Columbia Falls Lod Manhattan Cut Bank Gr Gr Butte Billin Missoula Billin Bozeman Park Cit Dillon Proctor Bi Stevensville Helena Gr Bozeman Miles Cit 1 7 9 4 8 5 3 6 2 28 39 44 47 25 32 26 41 40 33 36 13 20 46 19 38 48 30 35 23 29 11 50 49 42 16 43 22 21 18 34 10 15 12 17 37 45 31 27 24 14 Dist ) ) ) ) ) ) D ) ) D ) ) ) ( ) R ) ( ) ) R D ) D ) ) ( R R ) ( R ) R R ( ) R ) ( ) R D ) ) ) R ( ( R ) D D ( ) ) ( ) ) ( R D ) y( ( ( D ) ( ) D R ( D D D ( y( ) ( R n ) y( ) ) ) ( ( ) D D ( D R ( ( ) R ) ( R D ) y( y ( ( ( ( ) h ( R ) ) ( ) al C R ( R R R ) R n ) or D ( R ( ( p R y D ( ( y R ) D R ( g R ( D ( ( ( 2003 State Legislative Scorecard ( y( ( , Sam y( R y( ( , Bea g y , Brent , Brent , Fred Jose on, Dan Won, Dan , Mike , Mike ton, Emil er, John t y y on, Jon s, Carol , Jon g g g ue, Mike an, Jeff s , Gar Jr., Robert il, Jerr ss, Aub ss, g ila, er, Bill leton, Core g y g y , John lor, Mike Mike lor, p eat, Mike p an, Don Don an, ra uire y p imes, Duane ebhardt, Kell y p q oole, Ken ohnson, Ro Senator Anderson, Sherm Bales, Keith Barkus, Gre Black, Jerr Bohlin Butcher, Ed Cobb, John Cocchiarella, Vicki Coone Cromle Curti DePratu, Bob Ellin Elliott, Jim Es G Glas Gr Hansen, Ken Harrin J Keenan, Bob Kitzenber Laible, Rick Mahlum, Dale E Man McCarth McGee, Dan McNutt, Walter L Nelson, Linda J O'Ne Pease, Gerald Perr Roush, Glenn R Schmidt, Trudi Shea, Debbie S S Sta Stonin Stor Bill Tash, Ta Tester Thomas T Tro Wh Zook, Tom and that y ainst islator g g g Le Legend Vote in support Vote in support g g = s in the other s in the other ) MCV’s position position MCV’s = Previous ses- here applicable applicable here of (-) = Vote a session. SJR 22 and SJR 19 for informational are onl purposes MCV’s position not or Absent A = votin wa house durin house (+ from Excused E = votin ^ sion’s MCV score w italics = in counted not are score. Senate 12 11 y y f y y p g Bo

e j rove rove y y an an e man man schies schies enried hews hews g g g z g le on, A on, B an an s s p y Representative Keane Lake Lambert Lan Laslovich Laszloff Lawson Lehman Lenhart Lewis Lindeen Maed Malcolm Matt McKenne Mendenhall Mood Mor Mus Newman Noenni Ol Ol Parker Pattison Peterson Raser Rice Ri Roberts Rome Ross R Sales Schrum Shockle Sinrud Small-Eastman Smith Steinbeisser Stoker Thomas Wa Wait Wa Weiss Wilson Wind Witt Younkin 0% ------44% 89% 89% 22% 11% 11% 33% 67% 56% 89% 11% 11%

100% 1999 Score^ 0% 6% 6% 0% 6% 6% 0% ------82% 82% 12% 41% 18% 94% 12% 76% 41% 12% 82% 88% 35% 12% 12% 94% 18% 18% 24% 94% 88% 12% 2001 Score^ 0% 0% 7% 7% 0% 7% 0% 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 71% 79% 29% 64% 86% 21% 79% 79% 36% 50% 21% 36% 93% 86% 14%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

ection 2003

Score^ Prot Oppose ANWR Oppose ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

22

jor Facility jor SJR

Siting Act Act Siting Cripples Ma Cripples ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 443

ne Reclamation ne

Mi Reduces Metal Metal Reduces ------+ + + + + + + + + + +

SB 366

Reclamation

Reduces Coal Reduces otection ------+ + + + + + + + E

HB HB 373

Water Pr Water Coal Bed Methane Bed Coal ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB

380 Montana Conservation Voters

Resource Water Resource Destroys Outstanding Outstanding Destroys ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 467 Attacks Instream Flow Instream Attacks ------+ + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 720 Fish & Wildlife Protection Wildlife & Fish ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A

HB HB

671

operty Rights operty Pr

------

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E

ens Growth Plans Growth ens HB 712

eak W ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 326 Requires Citizen Bonding Citizen Requires ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB

700

stricts Court Access Court stricts Re ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + HB HB 437 eading r rd ee FishWildlife. and S eading in the House (passed 54-46), r nd THANE D ME ading for debate. Conservation community position: eading in Senate the votes featured. (passed 34-15) are r re RS nd nd AL BE HB 467 (Barrett, R-Dillon) makes the Outstanding Resource HB 380 (Lindeen, D-Huntley),‘irrigators the so-called bill,’ igators, landowners, and conservationists all teamed up this ater (ORW) designation virtually impossible to get. O IVE utstanding Resource Waters are state waters that are of such state waters that are are Waters utstanding Resource r ee also bills under FishWildlife. and equires a writtenequires finding of necessity for such protection, and Conservation community position: oppose. Signed into law. W O environmental, ecological or economic value that the state feasible in order protection such waters the greatest should provide impairment of existing water quality.to prohibit The Legislature of designating a river made the process as an ORW had already difficult when it passed the law in 1995 - only a section of the for designation - but this billGallatin River has been proposed r the petitioner to pay in advance costs of would require developing impact the statutorily-required environmental statement (estimated in the case of the Gallatin River to be in the neighborhood of $250,000). As originally written, it also attempted to apply to the Gallatin retroactively River petition, but that clause was removed. 2 and 2 in water produced the discharge of ground would have allowed association with a coal bed methane well into State waters only if the State had adopted numeric standards for electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption the discharge. for the water body receiving discharge water to be impounded,It allowed with the consent of the landowner, even if such standards have not been adopted. The Committee on a tie bill stalled Resources in the House Natural vote; vote is a motion by Rep. the featured Lindeen to put the bill on 2 support. The motion failed, 55-45, because a 2/3 vote was required. stated that the only for a determination that a state agency remedy would be to send Act Policy violated the Montana Environmental the decision back to the agency. Meanwhile, the erroneously issued in force.permit would remain The Senate vote is 3 R Waters HB 467 – Outstanding Resource flow HB 720 – Instream C Ir a seriessession to promote water and surface of bills to protect the impacts of coal bed methane development.lands from of None the bills passed out of committee, suggesting an appalling lack of understanding or concern on the part about the of the legislature potential affects of coal bed methane development on Montanan’s waters and soils. coal bed methane of water from HB 380 – Protection development (passed 35-15). Conservation community position: oppose. The Committee on a tie vote. bill Resources died in the House Natural S CT ICY A 2003 State Legislative Scorecard eading (passed 32- r eading. Conservation nd r AL POL nd NT eading. Conservation community r nd ONME eading vote (passed 58-42). Conservation r nd NVIR A E AN SB 350, by Sen. offered Duane Grimes (R-Clancy), en. (D-Helena),Toole Ken in SB 412 to amend the proposed S HB 720 (Hurwitz, Sulphur R-White Springs) restricts the A backlash against the federal Species Endangered Act, SB 392 ust minimize the adverse impacts but cannot cause the rejection tockgrowers, rights HB 720 singled out instream holders for this equires that someone objecting to a newequires water right because of an community position: oppose. The Senate heavily amended the bill the most objectionable provisions.to remove In its final form, it r of the right identify the nature must flow existing instream adversely affected beneficial uses. Signed into law. 17) vote featured. Conservation community position: oppose. The House dramatically the agency amended the bill to simply require Act.to comply Policy with the Montana Environmental Signed into law. community position: support. The motion failed 48-50. to in the House put a bill killed in committee required votes are Sixty on the floor. significantly impact fish, wildlife or their habitats. The mitigations m of the proposal. The bill was killed in committee on a tie vote; the vote was on a motion by Rep.featured to pull the bill Clark from committee for consideration on 2 SB 412 – Fisheries Act Protection flow HB 720 – Instream WildlifeSB 392 – habitat MONT violations SB 350 – Limits Remedies for MEPA strictly limited what a court can order an agency to do after its Act. to comply Policy failure with the Montana Environmental It state’s major environmental permitting and planning laws to major environmental state’s mitigated. that adverse impacts on fish and habitat are provide The Senate Committee killed the bill; Resources Natural the vote is on the motion by Sen.featured to bring the bill out of Toole committee for a vote on 2 ability of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife to and Parks challenge new or changed water rights that reduce requests levels fish and wildlife. established to protect below flows instream affect instream It shifts the use won’t to show the burden of proof rights the applicant from flow of the new junior water right to the right, flow senior holder of the instream that prove now who must amount is valid. flow the instream by the Montana Promoted S new burden. House 2 (Bales, R-Otter restricts the Department Creek) of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ ability to develop species management plans by activities that affect the use of lands not under prohibiting of the department. control direct It would have essentially managing species to preventprevented listing under the state from Speciesthe Endangered Act, collaborating or from with federal agencies on species management. Senate 2 position: support. The motion failed, 18-32. 6 7 nd eading (passed 53-45). TS eading (passed 33-17). r r rd IGH nd Y R T eading (passed 57-43) and Senate 2 r eading vote, failed, 19-31. Conservation r R E nd nd OP IONS: T U TE PR A ee description and vote under Land Planning. Use SOL IV S SJ 19 (Curtiss, legal to remove urged Congress R-Fortine) by Sen.This resolution Dan McGee (R-Billings), urges oposals E eading (passed 28-19). Conservation community position: egulations. Senate 2 in the 2003 session.esolutions proposed While these resolutions featured are House 2 are featured protection from the remaining Montana Wilderness Montana the remaining Study from protection Act areas. these wildlands SJ 19 alleged that protecting leads to lay- offs in the timber and mining industry of and the problems Montana farmers. Senate 2 Wildlife National to open the Arctic Congress Refuge to oil and gas leasing, claiming that the people of Montana support continued development the of fossil fuels as a way to addresses energy independence.short-term needs of our nation’s It by of the resolution nature attempted to mollify the controversial its supportalso calling to increase for renewable on Congress energy development. Senate are featured 3rd reading Votes (passed 35-15), and House 3 Conservation community position: oppose. Filed with Secretary of State. PR Takings SB 397 – with a so-called confronted Once again Montana legislators were ‘takings’ bill, and once again, they spurned the effort. Sen. Aubyn SB 397, offered Curtiss (R-Fortine) modeled after in a measure Oregon, takings bills which is one of the most egregious in Montana.introduced payment for any It would have required loss of property compliance with local value from or state r Property Rights for Subdivision Vested HB 712 – Pr R Once again, featuring we are certain federal land management r of law,have no force often they are used to send messages or other officials purportingCongress the will of to reflect Montanans. for informational are The votes on these resolutions purposes only, not included and are for in the final scores legislators. can find the full text of these and other resolutions You the delisting of wolves,addressing genetically modified organisms, bison, water management, and other issues at: www.leg.state.mt.us/css/bills/default.asp. Wilderness Study areas Forest SJR 19 – National SJR 22 – ANWR community position: oppose. r oppose. Signed into law. Conservation community position: oppose. The House Natural Committee tabled the bill. Resources rd nd eading vote. r Montana Conservation Voters nd eading (passed 64-36) are r rd eading (passed 64-32) and Senate 2 r rd eading for a vote. Conservation community r nd GY R One of three SenateOne of three by Sen. bills introduced Stonington (D- HB 373 puts coal companies in charge of deciding when, how the ongoing battle by industryThis bill reflects to define This bill, by Rep. sponsored Mike Lange (R-Billings), lamation in a way that will comply with the Montana lamation, of dust, and control weeds, and traffic, and other gned into law. NE c c B 240 – Negotiated protection for surface protection owners B 240 – Negotiated wo legislators, Reps. Kim Gillan and Bruce Malcolm, supported wners regarding locationwners regarding of land disturbances, use and

eading (passed 33-17). Conservation community position: equiring reclamation, may be unconstitutional. Senate 3 eading (passed 41-9) and House 3 that such facilities avoid unacceptable the requirement emoves

r oppose. Signed into law. the featured votes.the featured Conservation community position: oppose. Si Bozeman) to protect residents and landowners from the impacts from and landowners Bozeman) residents to protect of coal bed methane development, SB 240 would have required CBM operators to negotiate surface with surface use agreements o impoundment of water, mitigation of damages including re and what they will reclaim after mining is over. The company’s that it can in fact achieve is to show only the requirement reclamation,proposed and that subsequent use of the reclaimed land is not hazardous to public health and safety. The featured House 3 votes are re stating that all lands disturbed provision by the Constitution’s shall be reclaimed,taking of natural resources and in particular, to minimize backfilling of open pits. SB 366 (Grimes, R-Clancy) for backfilling, the requirement would remove and by not r r shortens the major facility siting process, associated fees, reduces finding that the construction the current of and removes additional electric transmission facilities, pipeline facilities, or geothermal and an facilities have an effect on the environment citizens. of the State’s impact on local and the welfare residents It r citizens, and the state’s adverse effects on the environment and no that certain Statelonger requires agencies, local and governments federal facilities. agencies be notified of such proposed Votes issues. The bill stalled in the Senate Resources Natural Committee; vote is Sen. the featured motion to place Stonington’s the bill on 2 position: support. The motion failed, 21-28. from coal bed methane developmentfrom T Rep. motion after voting against the bill in committee. Lindeen’s If either had voted for the bill in committee, it would have automatically to the House floor for a 2 proceeded S MINING HB 373 – Coal reclamation SB 366 – Metal mine reclamation E SitingHB 443 – Major Facility Act

Farm Ban Farm

epeal Game epeal R ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 379

Initiatives

stricts Citizen stricts Re ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 719

ection Changes ection El ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + HB HB 190 T T Term Term Limited y p Lake Lake

y s s s s s s ant ston ston ow ow y y r e Grass g g g g g g g g lar g g itefish p ffalo ffalo eat Falls eat Falls eat Falls endive City Butte Hamilton Hammond Billin Anaconda Laurel Wh Power Gl Helena Huntle Fortine Emi Miles Cit Gr Cardwell Seele Billin Havre Butte Billin Roundu Lakeside Gr Glas Bu Missoula Harrison Creek Wolf Billin Garrison Absarokee Stockett Bozeman Billin Victor Bozeman Lod Po Sidne Hamilton Hobson Livin Peerless Missoula Billin Gr Box Elder Carter Bozeman 1 2 7 4 9 8 6 36 60 19 57 22 80 87 55 81 25 49 39 58 21 91 38 76 45 95 94 70 33 50 10 56 24 41 27 12 61 31 98 59 93 26 96 68 13 46 92 89 28 100 Dist ) D ( ) ) D R ) ( ( ) ) D ( ) ) R R ) ) ( ( ) ) ) ) ) D D ) ) ) ) ) R ) ) ( ( D ) R ) D ( ) R ) R R R ) D ) D ( ) R ) ( ) ) R ( ) D ) ) R ( ( ( ) R ( ) ) ) ) R D ( R ) ( ) ) R ) R ( R ( R R ) R ) ( D D y( R ) ( ( R ( ( D R ( R R ( y( y( ) ( ( R ( R ) R R ( ) 2003 State Legislative Scorecard h ( ( y( R D ( onathan ( D ( ( y( ( ( ff R p ( R J R ( ( ( y( g( , , Joe Jesse Jesse enn Clarice y y ed, David David ed, , Jim f, , Je P Cind , Mark , Mark y y p ve, John g Bo an, Pat Brennan , Rick

e, Rick as, Bill j ro y y an, an, e, Michael m schies, Karl Karl schies, hews, Gar hews, on, Bill g ss, Sand ss, g g g le on, Alan on, Bernie ss, Jack ss, an, an, ls om tt, John s s p y Representative Keane, Jim Lake, Bob Lambert, Carol Lan Laslovich, Laszloff Lawson, Bob Lehman, Larr Lenhart, Ral Lewis, Dave Lindeen, Monica Maed Malcolm, Bruce Matt McKenne Mendenhall, Scott Mood, Dou Mor Mus Newman, Brad Noenni Ol Ol Parker, John Pattison, Jeff Peterson, Jim Raser, Holl Rice, Diane Ri Roberts, Don Rome, Allen Ro R Sales, Scott Schrum Shockle Sinrud, John Small-Eastman, Veronica Smith, Frank Steinbeisser, Donald Stoker, Ron Th Wa Wait Wanzenri Wei Wi Wind Wi Younkin, that ainst islator g g g Le Legend Vote in support Vote in support g g , and not not , and = y s in the other s in the other ) MCV’s position position MCV’s = Previous ses- here applicable applicable here session. for infor- SJR 22 is purposes mational onl MCV’s position not or Absent A = votin (+ of (-) = Vote a from Excused E = votin ^ sion’s MCV score w counted in score. in counted wa durin house House of Representatives italics = 10 jor Facility House of Representatives otection en Growth Plans g Act ection stricts Citizen stricts Court Access ne Reclamation ection Changes eak operty Rights Initiatives Farm Ban Resource WaterWater Pr ReclamationReducesMi Metal Cripples Sitin Ma OpposeProt ANWR El Re Repeal Game Re Requires CitizenW Bonding Pr Fish & Wildlife ProtectionAttacks InstreamDestroys Flow OutstandingCoal Bed MethaneReduces Coal Term HB HB HB HB HB SB HB HB HB HB HB HB SB HB SJR 2003 2001 1999 Representative Dist City Limited 190 719 379 437 700 326 712 671 720 467 380 373 366 443 22 Score^ Score^ Score^ Representative Andersen, Joan (R) 23 Fromberg ------+ ------7% 6% 11% Anderson Ballantyne, Norman (D) 86 Valier + + - + + + + + - + + - - + + 71% - - Ballantyne Balyeat, Joe (R) 32 Bozeman - + ------+ A - - - 15% 12% - Balyeat Barrett, Debby (R) 34 Dillon ------0% 6% - Barrett Becker, Arlene (D) 18 Billings + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Becker Bergren, Bob (D) 90 Havre + - - + - + + + + + + - - - + 57% - - Bergren Bitney, Rod (R) 77 Kalispell T ------0% 0% 0% Bitney Bixby, Norma (D) 5 Lame Deer + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E 100% 100% - Bixby Bookout-Reinicke, Sylvia (R) 71 Alberton T ------E E ------0% 12% 38% Bookout-Reinicke Branae, Gary (D) 17 Billings + A + + + + + + + + + - + + + 92% 100% - Branae Brown, Dee (R) 83 Hungry Horse ------0% 6% - Brown, D Brown, Roy (R) 14 Billings - + ------7% 18% 11% Brown, R Brueggeman, John (R) 74 Polson ------0% 0% - Brueggeman Buzzas, Rosie (D) 65 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 100% Buzzas Callahan, Tim (D) 43 Great Falls + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% - Callahan Carney, Eileen (D) 82 Libby + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Carney Clark, Edith (R) 88 Sweetgrass ------0% 6% 11% Clark, E Clark, Paul (D) 72 Trout Creek + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 76% 89% Clark, P Cohenour, Jill (D) 51 East Helena + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + 93% - - Cohenour Legend Cyr, Larry (D) 37 Butte + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + 93% 100% - Cyr Devlin, Ronald (R) 3 Terry ------0% 0% - Devlin (+) = Vote in support Dickenson, Sue (D) 47 Great Falls + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Dickenson of MCV’s position Dowell, Tim (D) 78 Kalispell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Dowell Erickson, Ron (D) 64 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 100% Erickson Everett, George (R) 84 Kalispell ------Everett (-) = Vote against 0% Facey, Tom (D) 67 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + E + + + 100% 100% 100% Facey MCV’s position Fisher, Stanley (R) 75 Bigfork ------A - - - 0% 12% 11% Fisher Forrester, Gary (D) 16 Billings + + + - + - - + + - + - - - - 50% 53% - Forrester A = Absent or not Franklin, Eve (D) 42 Great Falls + + + + + - + - + + + + + + + 86% 93% 100%Franklin voting Fritz, Nancy (D) 69 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% - Fritz Fuchs, Daniel (R) 15 Billings T - - - - A ------0% 12% 0% Fuchs E = Excused from Gallik, Dave (D) 52 Helena + + + + + - + + + + + + - + + 86% 94% - Gallik voting Gallus, Steve (D) 35 Butte + - + - - + + + + + + - - + + 64% 82% 67% Gallus Galvin-Halcro, Kathleen (D) 48 Great Falls + + + + + - + + + + + + - + + 86% 100% 100% Galvin-Halcro Gibson, Carol (D) 20 Billings + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Gibson ^ = Previous ses- Gillan, Kim (D) 11 Billings T + + + - + + + + + + + - + + E 86% 94% 89% Gillan sion’s MCV score Golie, George (D) 44 Great Falls + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + 93% 94% 67% Golie where applicable Gutsche, Gail (D) 66 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 100% Gutsche Haines, Dick (R) 63 Missoula - - + - - + ------14% 18% 44% Haines italics = Legislator Harris, Christopher (D) 30 Bozeman + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% - Harris was in the other Hawk, Ray (R) 62 Florence ------0% - - Hawk house during that Hedges, Donald (R) 97 Antelope ------0% 12% 11% Hedges session. Hurwitz, Daniel (R) 40 White Sulpher Springs ------+ - - 7% - - Hurwitz Jackson, Verdell (R) 79 Kalispell ------E ------0% 12% 22% Jackson Jacobson, Hal (D) 54 Helena + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + 93% 82% - Jacobson SJR 22 is for infor- Jayne, Joey (D) 73 Arlee + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Jayne mational purposes Jent, Larry (D) 29 Bozeman + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Jent only,and not Juneau, Carol (D) 85 Browning + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% 100% Juneau counted in score. Kasten, Dave (R) 99 Brockway ------+ - - - - 7% 6% - Kasten Kaufmann, Christine (D) 53 Helena + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Kaufmann

8 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 9 jor Facility House of Representatives otection en Growth Plans g Act ection stricts Citizen stricts Court Access ne Reclamation ection Changes eak operty Rights Initiatives Farm Ban Resource WaterWater Pr ReclamationReducesMi Metal Cripples Sitin Ma OpposeProt ANWR El Re Repeal Game Re Requires CitizenW Bonding Pr Fish & Wildlife ProtectionAttacks InstreamDestroys Flow OutstandingCoal Bed MethaneReduces Coal Term HB HB HB HB HB SB HB HB HB HB HB HB SB HB SJR 2003 2001 1999 Representative Dist City Limited 190 719 379 437 700 326 712 671 720 467 380 373 366 443 22 Score^ Score^ Score^ Representative Andersen, Joan (R) 23 Fromberg ------+ ------7% 6% 11% Anderson Ballantyne, Norman (D) 86 Valier + + - + + + + + - + + - - + + 71% - - Ballantyne Balyeat, Joe (R) 32 Bozeman - + ------+ A - - - 15% 12% - Balyeat Barrett, Debby (R) 34 Dillon ------0% 6% - Barrett Becker, Arlene (D) 18 Billings + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Becker Bergren, Bob (D) 90 Havre + - - + - + + + + + + - - - + 57% - - Bergren Bitney, Rod (R) 77 Kalispell T ------0% 0% 0% Bitney Bixby, Norma (D) 5 Lame Deer + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E 100% 100% - Bixby Bookout-Reinicke, Sylvia (R) 71 Alberton T ------E E ------0% 12% 38% Bookout-Reinicke Branae, Gary (D) 17 Billings + A + + + + + + + + + - + + + 92% 100% - Branae Brown, Dee (R) 83 Hungry Horse ------0% 6% - Brown, D Brown, Roy (R) 14 Billings - + ------7% 18% 11% Brown, R Brueggeman, John (R) 74 Polson ------0% 0% - Brueggeman Buzzas, Rosie (D) 65 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 100% Buzzas Callahan, Tim (D) 43 Great Falls + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% - Callahan Carney, Eileen (D) 82 Libby + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Carney Clark, Edith (R) 88 Sweetgrass ------0% 6% 11% Clark, E Clark, Paul (D) 72 Trout Creek + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 76% 89% Clark, P Cohenour, Jill (D) 51 East Helena + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + 93% - - Cohenour Legend Cyr, Larry (D) 37 Butte + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + 93% 100% - Cyr Devlin, Ronald (R) 3 Terry ------0% 0% - Devlin (+) = Vote in support Dickenson, Sue (D) 47 Great Falls + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Dickenson of MCV’s position Dowell, Tim (D) 78 Kalispell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Dowell Erickson, Ron (D) 64 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 100% Erickson Everett, George (R) 84 Kalispell ------Everett (-) = Vote against 0% Facey, Tom (D) 67 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + E + + + 100% 100% 100% Facey MCV’s position Fisher, Stanley (R) 75 Bigfork ------A - - - 0% 12% 11% Fisher Forrester, Gary (D) 16 Billings + + + - + - - + + - + - - - - 50% 53% - Forrester A = Absent or not Franklin, Eve (D) 42 Great Falls + + + + + - + - + + + + + + + 86% 93% 100%Franklin voting Fritz, Nancy (D) 69 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% - Fritz Fuchs, Daniel (R) 15 Billings T - - - - A ------0% 12% 0% Fuchs E = Excused from Gallik, Dave (D) 52 Helena + + + + + - + + + + + + - + + 86% 94% - Gallik voting Gallus, Steve (D) 35 Butte + - + - - + + + + + + - - + + 64% 82% 67% Gallus Galvin-Halcro, Kathleen (D) 48 Great Falls + + + + + - + + + + + + - + + 86% 100% 100% Galvin-Halcro Gibson, Carol (D) 20 Billings + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% - - Gibson ^ = Previous ses- Gillan, Kim (D) 11 Billings T + + + - + + + + + + + - + + E 86% 94% 89% Gillan sion’s MCV score Golie, George (D) 44 Great Falls + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + 93% 94% 67% Golie where applicable Gutsche, Gail (D) 66 Missoula + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 100% Gutsche Haines, Dick (R) 63 Missoula - - + - - + ------14% 18% 44% Haines italics = Legislator Harris, Christopher (D) 30 Bozeman + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% - Harris was in the other Hawk, Ray (R) 62 Florence ------0% - - Hawk house during that Hedges, Donald (R) 97 Antelope ------0% 12% 11% Hedges session. Hurwitz, Daniel (R) 40 White Sulpher Springs ------+ - - 7% - - Hurwitz Jackson, Verdell (R) 79 Kalispell ------E ------0% 12% 22% Jackson Jacobson, Hal (D) 54 Helena + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + 93% 82% - Jacobson SJR 22 is for infor- Jayne, Joey (D) 73 Arlee + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Jayne mational purposes Jent, Larry (D) 29 Bozeman + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Jent only,and not Juneau, Carol (D) 85 Browning + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 94% 100% Juneau counted in score. Kasten, Dave (R) 99 Brockway ------+ - - - - 7% 6% - Kasten Kaufmann, Christine (D) 53 Helena + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100% - Kaufmann

8 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 9 7 nd eading (passed 53-45). TS eading (passed 33-17). r r rd IGH nd Y R T eading (passed 57-43) and Senate 2 r eading vote, failed, 19-31. Conservation r R E nd nd OP IONS: T U TE PR A ee description and vote under Land Planning. Use SOL IV S SJ 19 (Curtiss, legal to remove urged Congress R-Fortine) by Sen.This resolution Dan McGee (R-Billings), urges oposals E eading (passed 28-19). Conservation community position: egulations. Senate 2 in the 2003 session.esolutions proposed While these resolutions featured are House 2 are featured protection from the remaining Montana Wilderness Montana the remaining Study from protection Act areas. these wildlands SJ 19 alleged that protecting leads to lay- offs in the timber and mining industry of and the problems Montana farmers. Senate 2 Wildlife National to open the Arctic Congress Refuge to oil and gas leasing, claiming that the people of Montana support continued development the of fossil fuels as a way to addresses energy independence.short-term needs of our nation’s It by of the resolution nature attempted to mollify the controversial its supportalso calling to increase for renewable on Congress energy development. Senate are featured 3rd reading Votes (passed 35-15), and House 3 Conservation community position: oppose. Filed with Secretary of State. PR Takings SB 397 – with a so-called confronted Once again Montana legislators were ‘takings’ bill, and once again, they spurned the effort. Sen. Aubyn SB 397, offered Curtiss (R-Fortine) modeled after in a measure Oregon, takings bills which is one of the most egregious in Montana.introduced payment for any It would have required loss of property compliance with local value from or state r Property Rights for Subdivision Vested HB 712 – Pr R Once again, featuring we are certain federal land management r of law,have no force often they are used to send messages or other officials purportingCongress the will of to reflect Montanans. for informational are The votes on these resolutions purposes only, not included and are for in the final scores legislators. can find the full text of these and other resolutions You the delisting of wolves,addressing genetically modified organisms, bison, water management, and other issues at: www.leg.state.mt.us/css/bills/default.asp. Wilderness Study areas Forest SJR 19 – National SJR 22 – ANWR community position: oppose. r oppose. Signed into law. Conservation community position: oppose. The House Natural Committee tabled the bill. Resources rd nd eading vote. r Montana Conservation Voters nd eading (passed 64-36) are r rd eading (passed 64-32) and Senate 2 r rd eading for a vote. Conservation community r nd GY R One of three SenateOne of three by Sen. bills introduced Stonington (D- HB 373 puts coal companies in charge of deciding when, how the ongoing battle by industryThis bill reflects to define This bill, by Rep. sponsored Mike Lange (R-Billings), lamation in a way that will comply with the Montana lamation, of dust, and control weeds, and traffic, and other gned into law. NE c c B 240 – Negotiated protection for surface protection owners B 240 – Negotiated wo legislators, Reps. Kim Gillan and Bruce Malcolm, supported wners regarding locationwners regarding of land disturbances, use and

eading (passed 33-17). Conservation community position: equiring reclamation, may be unconstitutional. Senate 3 eading (passed 41-9) and House 3 that such facilities avoid unacceptable the requirement emoves

r oppose. Signed into law. the featured votes.the featured Conservation community position: oppose. Si Bozeman) to protect residents and landowners from the impacts from and landowners Bozeman) residents to protect of coal bed methane development, SB 240 would have required CBM operators to negotiate surface with surface use agreements o impoundment of water, mitigation of damages including re and what they will reclaim after mining is over. The company’s that it can in fact achieve is to show only the requirement reclamation,proposed and that subsequent use of the reclaimed land is not hazardous to public health and safety. The featured House 3 votes are re stating that all lands disturbed provision by the Constitution’s shall be reclaimed,taking of natural resources and in particular, to minimize backfilling of open pits. SB 366 (Grimes, R-Clancy) for backfilling, the requirement would remove and by not r r shortens the major facility siting process, associated fees, reduces finding that the construction the current of and removes additional electric transmission facilities, pipeline facilities, or geothermal and an facilities have an effect on the environment citizens. of the State’s impact on local and the welfare residents It r citizens, and the state’s adverse effects on the environment and no that certain Statelonger requires agencies, local and governments federal facilities. agencies be notified of such proposed Votes issues. The bill stalled in the Senate Resources Natural Committee; vote is Sen. the featured motion to place Stonington’s the bill on 2 position: support. The motion failed, 21-28. from coal bed methane developmentfrom T Rep. motion after voting against the bill in committee. Lindeen’s If either had voted for the bill in committee, it would have automatically to the House floor for a 2 proceeded S MINING HB 373 – Coal reclamation SB 366 – Metal mine reclamation E SitingHB 443 – Major Facility Act

Farm Ban Farm

epeal Game epeal R ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 379

Initiatives

stricts Citizen stricts Re ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 719

ection Changes ection El ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + HB HB 190 T T Term Term Limited y p Lake Lake

y s s s s s s ant ston ston ow ow y y r e Grass g g g g g g g g lar g g itefish p ffalo ffalo eat Falls eat Falls eat Falls endive City Butte Hamilton Hammond Billin Anaconda Laurel Wh Power Gl Helena Huntle Fortine Emi Miles Cit Gr Cardwell Seele Billin Havre Butte Billin Roundu Lakeside Gr Glas Bu Missoula Harrison Creek Wolf Billin Garrison Absarokee Stockett Bozeman Billin Victor Bozeman Lod Po Sidne Hamilton Hobson Livin Peerless Missoula Billin Gr Box Elder Carter Bozeman 1 2 7 4 9 8 6 36 60 19 57 22 80 87 55 81 25 49 39 58 21 91 38 76 45 95 94 70 33 50 10 56 24 41 27 12 61 31 98 59 93 26 96 68 13 46 92 89 28 100 Dist ) D ( ) ) D R ) ( ( ) ) D ( ) ) R R ) ) ( ( ) ) ) ) ) D D ) ) ) ) ) R ) ) ( ( D ) R ) D ( ) R ) R R R ) D ) D ( ) R ) ( ) ) R ( ) D ) ) R ( ( ( ) R ( ) ) ) ) R D ( R ) ( ) ) R ) R ( R ( R R ) R ) ( D D y( R ) ( ( R ( ( D R ( R R ( y( y( ) ( ( R ( R ) R R ( ) 2003 State Legislative Scorecard h ( ( y( R D ( onathan ( D ( ( y( ( ( ff R p ( R J R ( ( ( y( g( , , Joe Jesse Jesse enn Clarice y y ed, David David ed, , Jim f, , Je P Cind , Mark , Mark y y p ve, John g Bo an, Pat Brennan , Rick

e, Rick as, Bill j ro y y an, an, e, Michael m schies, Karl Karl schies, hews, Gar hews, on, Bill g ss, Sand ss, g g g le on, Alan on, Bernie ss, Jack ss, an, an, ls om tt, John s s p y Representative Keane, Jim Lake, Bob Lambert, Carol Lan Laslovich, Laszloff Lawson, Bob Lehman, Larr Lenhart, Ral Lewis, Dave Lindeen, Monica Maed Malcolm, Bruce Matt McKenne Mendenhall, Scott Mood, Dou Mor Mus Newman, Brad Noenni Ol Ol Parker, John Pattison, Jeff Peterson, Jim Raser, Holl Rice, Diane Ri Roberts, Don Rome, Allen Ro R Sales, Scott Schrum Shockle Sinrud, John Small-Eastman, Veronica Smith, Frank Steinbeisser, Donald Stoker, Ron Th Wa Wait Wanzenri Wei Wi Wind Wi Younkin, that ainst islator g g g Le Legend Vote in support Vote in support g g , and not not , and = y s in the other s in the other ) MCV’s position position MCV’s = Previous ses- here applicable applicable here session. for infor- SJR 22 is purposes mational onl MCV’s position not or Absent A = votin (+ of (-) = Vote a from Excused E = votin ^ sion’s MCV score w counted in score. in counted wa durin house House of Representatives italics = 10 11 y y f y y p g Bo

e j rove rove y y an an e man man schies schies enried hews hews g g g z g le on, A on, B an an s s p y Representative Keane Lake Lambert Lan Laslovich Laszloff Lawson Lehman Lenhart Lewis Lindeen Maed Malcolm Matt McKenne Mendenhall Mood Mor Mus Newman Noenni Ol Ol Parker Pattison Peterson Raser Rice Ri Roberts Rome Ross R Sales Schrum Shockle Sinrud Small-Eastman Smith Steinbeisser Stoker Thomas Wa Wait Wa Weiss Wilson Wind Witt Younkin 0% ------44% 89% 89% 22% 11% 11% 33% 67% 56% 89% 11% 11%

100% 1999 Score^ 0% 6% 6% 0% 6% 6% 0% ------82% 82% 12% 41% 18% 94% 12% 76% 41% 12% 82% 88% 35% 12% 12% 94% 18% 18% 24% 94% 88% 12% 2001 Score^ 0% 0% 7% 7% 0% 7% 0% 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 71% 79% 29% 64% 86% 21% 79% 79% 36% 50% 21% 36% 93% 86% 14%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

ection 2003

Score^ Prot Oppose ANWR Oppose ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

22

jor Facility jor SJR

Siting Act Act Siting Cripples Ma Cripples ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 443

ne Reclamation ne

Mi Reduces Metal Metal Reduces ------+ + + + + + + + + + +

SB 366

Reclamation

Reduces Coal Reduces otection ------+ + + + + + + + E

HB HB 373

Water Pr Water Coal Bed Methane Bed Coal ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB

380 Montana Conservation Voters

Resource Water Resource Destroys Outstanding Outstanding Destroys ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 467 Attacks Instream Flow Instream Attacks ------+ + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB 720 Fish & Wildlife Protection Wildlife & Fish ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A

HB HB

671

operty Rights operty Pr

------

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E

ens Growth Plans Growth ens HB 712

eak W ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 326 Requires Citizen Bonding Citizen Requires ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB HB

700

stricts Court Access Court stricts Re ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + HB HB 437 eading r rd ee FishWildlife. and S eading in the House (passed 54-46), r nd THANE D ME ading for debate. Conservation community position: eading in Senate the votes featured. (passed 34-15) are r re RS nd nd AL BE HB 467 (Barrett, R-Dillon) makes the Outstanding Resource HB 380 (Lindeen, D-Huntley),‘irrigators the so-called bill,’ igators, landowners, and conservationists all teamed up this ater (ORW) designation virtually impossible to get. O IVE utstanding Resource Waters are state waters that are of such state waters that are are Waters utstanding Resource r ee also bills under FishWildlife. and equires a writtenequires finding of necessity for such protection, and Conservation community position: oppose. Signed into law. W O environmental, ecological or economic value that the state feasible in order protection such waters the greatest should provide impairment of existing water quality.to prohibit The Legislature of designating a river made the process as an ORW had already difficult when it passed the law in 1995 - only a section of the for designation - but this billGallatin River has been proposed r the petitioner to pay in advance costs of would require developing impact the statutorily-required environmental statement (estimated in the case of the Gallatin River to be in the neighborhood of $250,000). As originally written, it also attempted to apply to the Gallatin retroactively River petition, but that clause was removed. 2 and 2 in water produced the discharge of ground would have allowed association with a coal bed methane well into State waters only if the State had adopted numeric standards for electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption the discharge. for the water body receiving discharge water to be impounded,It allowed with the consent of the landowner, even if such standards have not been adopted. The Committee on a tie bill stalled Resources in the House Natural vote; vote is a motion by Rep. the featured Lindeen to put the bill on 2 support. The motion failed, 55-45, because a 2/3 vote was required. stated that the only for a determination that a state agency remedy would be to send Act Policy violated the Montana Environmental the decision back to the agency. Meanwhile, the erroneously issued in force.permit would remain The Senate vote is 3 R Waters HB 467 – Outstanding Resource flow HB 720 – Instream C Ir a seriessession to promote water and surface of bills to protect the impacts of coal bed methane development.lands from of None the bills passed out of committee, suggesting an appalling lack of understanding or concern on the part about the of the legislature potential affects of coal bed methane development on Montanan’s waters and soils. coal bed methane of water from HB 380 – Protection development (passed 35-15). Conservation community position: oppose. The Committee on a tie vote. bill Resources died in the House Natural S CT ICY A 2003 State Legislative Scorecard eading (passed 32- r eading. Conservation nd r AL POL nd NT eading. Conservation community r nd ONME eading vote (passed 58-42). Conservation r nd NVIR A E AN SB 350, by Sen. offered Duane Grimes (R-Clancy), en. (D-Helena),Toole Ken in SB 412 to amend the proposed S HB 720 (Hurwitz, Sulphur R-White Springs) restricts the A backlash against the federal Species Endangered Act, SB 392 ust minimize the adverse impacts but cannot cause the rejection tockgrowers, rights HB 720 singled out instream holders for this equires that someone objecting to a newequires water right because of an community position: oppose. The Senate heavily amended the bill the most objectionable provisions.to remove In its final form, it r of the right identify the nature must flow existing instream adversely affected beneficial uses. Signed into law. 17) vote featured. Conservation community position: oppose. The House dramatically the agency amended the bill to simply require Act.to comply Policy with the Montana Environmental Signed into law. community position: support. The motion failed 48-50. to in the House put a bill killed in committee required votes are Sixty on the floor. significantly impact fish, wildlife or their habitats. The mitigations m of the proposal. The bill was killed in committee on a tie vote; the vote was on a motion by Rep.featured to pull the bill Clark from committee for consideration on 2 SB 412 – Fisheries Act Protection flow HB 720 – Instream WildlifeSB 392 – habitat MONT violations SB 350 – Limits Remedies for MEPA strictly limited what a court can order an agency to do after its Act. to comply Policy failure with the Montana Environmental It state’s major environmental permitting and planning laws to major environmental state’s mitigated. that adverse impacts on fish and habitat are provide The Senate Committee killed the bill; Resources Natural the vote is on the motion by Sen.featured to bring the bill out of Toole committee for a vote on 2 ability of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife to and Parks challenge new or changed water rights that reduce requests levels fish and wildlife. established to protect below flows instream affect instream It shifts the use won’t to show the burden of proof rights the applicant from flow of the new junior water right to the right, flow senior holder of the instream that prove now who must amount is valid. flow the instream by the Montana Promoted S new burden. House 2 (Bales, R-Otter restricts the Department Creek) of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ ability to develop species management plans by activities that affect the use of lands not under prohibiting of the department. control direct It would have essentially managing species to preventprevented listing under the state from Speciesthe Endangered Act, collaborating or from with federal agencies on species management. Senate 2 position: support. The motion failed, 18-32. 6 5 eading vote on r rd eading (failed 22-26). Conservation r IFE nd eading vote (passed 49-48). Conservation r rd WILDL eading (passed 27-23), and House 3 r rd omoted by the Montana Smart Coalition, Growth SB 293 heat, funding D-Bozeman) to designate and provide proposed As proposed, SB 326 (McGee, R-Laurel) would drastically This bill, by Rep. sponsored John Sinrud (R-Bozeman), would Pr This bill, by Rep. sponsored Creek), (D-Trout Clark Paul oposals wo of the featured bills reflect an attempt by the conservation billswo of the featured reflect enate 3 annot condition land use decisions solely on compliance with a equired to pay the developerequired for conditions placed on the community position: oppose. The Senate Local Government Committee indefinitely postponed the bill. change Montana’s growth policy growth law,change Montana’s severely undermining attempts by local to adopt land use plans that help communities to appropriate areas. growth direct In its final form, the law states policythat a growth is not a regulatory document and jurisdictions c policy;growth policy only a growth it allows to cover part of a planning jurisdiction; and it eliminates the one-year time frame for that complyadoption of subdivision regulations with a growth policy. This bill had originally making the information to proposed be included policy in a growth discretionary, but opponents were policy the growth requirements.able to reinstate are featured Votes S ‘vestedhave given developers property a right’ immediately upon submission of a subdivision proposal. Local would be governments r proposal, effectively crippling ability local government’s to regulate land use. House 3 the FishWildlifeproposed and Act, Protection which recognizes the importance fish and wildlife of healthy populations and directs that may otherwisethe state to mitigate permits for projects community position: support. Billings), to review the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. SB 326 – Weakening of Growth Plans of Growth Weakening SB 326 – Property Rights for Subdivision Vested HB 712 – Pr PlansSB 293 – Growth for Fast-Growing Communities FISH AND the last decade,In piecemeal fashion over many of Montana’s laws have been weakened. protection substantive environmental T fish and wildlifecommunity to protect after the 2001 Legislature the abilityeffectively such of State removed agencies to require Act. Policy under the Montana Environmental protections The FishWildlife and Act HB 671 – Protection (W communities. for development plans in fast-growing of growth cities and counties to plan together fast growing This bill directed have adequate buildable land and that towns to ensure a 20- over growth infrastructure for projected to efficiently provide years period. Senate 2 free conference committee (passed 58-42). conference free Conservation community position: oppose. Signed into law. eading r rd Montana Conservation Voters eading (passed r rd eading on motion to accept r eading (passed 56-43) and Senate nd r nd eading (passed 31-19). Conservation r nd ANNING eading (passed 27-23) votes featured. Conservation r en. SB 410, introduced (R-Proctor) Taylor Mike which One of several bills to stifle citizen attempts to protect SB 298 (Thomas, R-Stevensville) that would have required S ther proposals focused on propertyther proposals rights, affordable housing, AND USE PL egislators introduced severalegislators introduced bills this session to amend statutes enate amendments (passed 60-40); Senate vote is 3 nd

eceiving an injunction against extractive industry. SB 410

community position: oppose. The House Judiciary Committee tabled the bill. 30-20). Conservation community position: oppose.Judiciary Committee tabled the bill. The House themselves though the courts, HB 700 (Brueggeman, R-Polson) hinders citizens’ ability to challenge the operation of air-polluting the automatic stay when a permit is facilities by removing appealed, and requiring a significant bond. Described by the Montana Legislative Legal Council as unconstitutional, the bill is targeted at citizens such as those who appealed an air permit want six large diesel locomotives operating 24 because they didn’t hours a day next to their house. It would encourage the State to dischargeissue general permits air and groundwater under which companies can begin discharging even the site application before has been submitted. House 2 2 community position: oppose. Signed into law. lawsuits challenging State permits be filed in the environmental county action would occur. in which the proposed Currently, citizens can also challenge laws in Lewis County, and Clark the seat of State government. This is simply an attempt to put local on local developments judges to allow evenpressure if the permits flawed.are Senate 2 citizens a bond from that courts seeking and proposed require r for waiving the bond,contained no provisions eliminated the law limiting bonds to $50,000,current and established a minimum bond of $10,000. Senate The featured vote is 3 interpret Montanans’ Constitutional rights, yet another reflecting attempt to undermine our Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. In addition, this bill is retroactive, so any currently being appealed willpermits have to comply that are with these changes. House vote is 2 S (passed 33-17). Conservation community position: oppose. Signed into law. HB 700 – Bonding, stays and general permitting SB 298 – Court venue SB 410 – Citizen bonding L L plans, growth governing formerly plans. as comprehensive known O transportation, zoning districts and subdivisions. of the Three significant in this Scorecard. featured more bills are In addition, the conservation to community convinced the legislature undertake an interim study, HJ 37, by Rep. (R- Noennig Mark Requires Citizen Bonding Citizen Requires ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 410 Changes Court Venue Court Changes ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 298 Requires Citizen Bonding Citizen Requires ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB 700

stricts Court Access Court stricts Re ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

HB 437

Initiatives strict Citizen Citizen strict

------Re + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E HB 719 T T T T T T T T T T Term Limited e g y y y p ll y City e s s s s s ow ow y y y ed e Grass p g g g g g g fr usta g itefish Timber Sand fork fork g eat Falls eat Falls eat Falls eat Falls out Creek g g g tter Deer Lod O Kalis Shelb Billin Wini Au Missoula Helena Billin Fortine Wh Missoula Tr Bi Roundu Huntle Clanc Harlem Butte Billin Bi Glas Victor Missoula Gr Anaconda Laurel Sidne Medicine Lake Columbia Falls Lod Manhattan Cut Bank Gr Gr Butte Billin Missoula Billin Bozeman Park Cit Dillon Proctor Bi Stevensville Helena Gr Bozeman Miles Cit 1 7 9 4 8 5 3 6 2 28 39 44 47 25 32 26 41 40 33 36 13 20 46 19 38 48 30 35 23 29 11 50 49 42 16 43 22 21 18 34 10 15 12 17 37 45 31 27 24 14 Dist ) ) ) ) ) ) D ) ) D ) ) ) ( ) R ) ( ) ) R D ) D ) ) ( R R ) ( R ) R R ( ) R ) ( ) R D ) ) ) R ( ( R ) D D ( ) ) ( ) ) ( R D ) y( ( ( D ) ( ) D R ( D D D ( y( ) ( R n ) y( ) ) ) ( ( ) D D ( D R ( ( ) R ) ( R D ) y( y ( ( ( ( ) h ( R ) ) ( ) al C R ( R R R ) R n ) or D ( R ( ( p R y D ( ( y R ) D R ( g R ( D ( ( ( 2003 State Legislative Scorecard ( y( ( , Sam y( R y( ( , Bea g y , Brent , Brent , Fred Jose on, Dan Won, Dan , Mike , Mike ton, Emil er, John t y y on, Jon s, Carol , Jon g g g ue, Mike an, Jeff s , Gar Jr., Robert il, Jerr ss, Aub ss, g ila, er, Bill leton, Core g y g y , John lor, Mike Mike lor, p eat, Mike p an, Don Don an, ra uire y p imes, Duane ebhardt, Kell y p q oole, Ken ohnson, Ro Senator Anderson, Sherm Bales, Keith Barkus, Gre Black, Jerr Bohlin Butcher, Ed Cobb, John Cocchiarella, Vicki Coone Cromle Curti DePratu, Bob Ellin Elliott, Jim Es G Glas Gr Hansen, Ken Harrin J Keenan, Bob Kitzenber Laible, Rick Mahlum, Dale E Man McCarth McGee, Dan McNutt, Walter L Nelson, Linda J O'Ne Pease, Gerald Perr Roush, Glenn R Schmidt, Trudi Shea, Debbie S S Sta Stonin Stor Bill Tash, Ta Tester Thomas T Tro Wh Zook, Tom and that y ainst islator g g g Le Legend Vote in support Vote in support g g = s in the other s in the other ) MCV’s position position MCV’s = Previous ses- here applicable applicable here of (-) = Vote a session. SJR 22 and SJR 19 for informational are onl purposes MCV’s position not or Absent A = votin wa house durin house (+ from Excused E = votin ^ sion’s MCV score w italics = in counted not are score. Senate 12 13 g y ton er ton ton y y g g g ue an son son g ila er leton g y g y lor lor p eat p an an ra uires y p ebhardt y p q oole ook ohnson Senator Anderson Bales Barkus Black Bohlin Butcher Cobb Cocchiarella Coone Cromle Curtiss DePratu Ellin Elliott Es G Glas Grimes Hansen Harrin J Keenan Kitzenber Laible Mahlum Man McCarth McGee McNutt Nelson O'Neil Pease Perr Roush R Schmidt Shea S S Sta Stonin Stor Tash Ta Tester Thomas T Tro Wh Z

0% 9% 9% 0% 0% ------

64% 13% 91% 27% 18% 56% 33% 82% 11% 56% 89% 55% 11% 18% 45% 64% 55% 89% 22% 36% 64% 18% 67%

100% 100% 100% 1999 Score ^ Score ^

6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 7%

------

73% 20% 33% 73% 60% 13% 13% 87% 33% 20% 20% 31% 94% 67% 12% 57% 14% 80% 40% 87% 88% 33% 87% 73% 88% 100% 100% 2001 Score ^ Score ^ 0% 0% 6% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13% 69% 13% 81% 69% 81% 88% 88% 67% 53% 44% 19% 50% 60% 50% 87% 38% 88% 93% 31% 19% 81% 71% 94% 94%

ection 2003 100% 100% 100% 100%

Score

Prot Oppose ANWR Oppose ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

22

SJR

udy

St Removes Wilderness Removes ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 19

SJ R

Takings ility ility

------r Fac r + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 397

Siting Act Siting

ation Cripples Majo Cripples ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E E E

HB

443

ne Reclam ne

Mi

Reduces Metal Reduces ation ------+ + + + + + + + +

SB 366

Reclam

Reduces Coal Reduces ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E

HB 373

Montana Conservation Voters

Landowner Protection Landowner Coal Bed Methane Bed Coal ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E

SB 240

Resource Water Resource Destroys Outstanding Outstanding Destroys ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E

HB

467

ts MEPA Remedies MEPA ts Cu ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 350

ection

Prot Removes Habitat Removes ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E

SB 392 Fisheries Protection Act Protection Fisheries ------

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB ens Growth Plans Growth ens 412

eak W ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SB 326 otes Growth Plan Growth otes

om Pr ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E E SB 293 eading eading r r T nd nd OUR O C T TS IGH N R IZE T ION ING CI T T OTECT The first of three game farm this session, billsThe first of three introduced HB by Rep.One in a handful of bad bills introduced Olson Alan en. Shea Senators (D-Butte) and a new initiative were Dan repeal eflected opposition to canned hunts. HB 379 passed 2 equest an injunction against the permittee, intended to a provision esponded in force against the bill.esponded in force have Realizing supporters didn’t but was sent back to committee after opposition from tremendous Montana residents; the bill never advanced to the Senate. Two and buy-out also some formother House bills of repeal proposing failed to pass committee. is 2 The House vote featured 379 (Ripley, game farms would have allowed Creek) R-Wolf shooting of penned elk and deer commercial operators to resume the transferand allowed and sale of game farms and their animals, banned under Initiative 143,activities which were by approved voters in 2000. wild The initiative was an attempt to protect wasting disease, diseases such as chronic animals from and r (R-Roundup), HB 437 is perhaps the flagship of industry’s series of bills to make citizen challenges to State difficult. actions more As drafted, challenging certain anyone state permits to it required r citizensforce and organizations challenging permits to post a significant bond. Although the Senate deleted this requirement, it added other amendments that make it even difficult for more themselvespeople to protect by requiring citizens to first challenge the constitutionality of a particular statute, even if the challenge to a particular relating law. Theisn’t challenges bill also forces to be filed in the county the activity where occurs, even though many against the State.challenges are will It states that the legislature (passed 53-47). Conservation community position: oppose. Game Farm Repeal – HB 379 Game Farm CU PR Conservation assaulted by a barrage of industry- were interests supported bills attempting to limit the ability of citizens to use the courts themselves, to protect their families and communities the law. to follow failure the State’s from The attack was outlined in a January by an oil and tobacco industry 2003 memo provided Trade Environmental lobbyistWestern to the lobbyist for the Association, group. an anti-environmental The industry proposal intended to make citizen challenge difficult of state decisions more and prohibitively costly, and to elevate certain property rights everythingabove else. HB 437 – Restricting court access and challenging the Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment r the votes to win on Senate floor, Sen. Shea her decided to drop bill. However, she and her supporters said that they plan to move forward initiative drive to put I-137 back with their own on the ballot. Legislators in support appearing conference of at the press S McGee (R-Laurel),Thomas (R-Stevensville), Fred Cocchiarella (D-Missoula); Vicki Gary and Representatives Forrestor (D-Billings), Alan Olson (R-Roundup) and Jim Keane (D-Butte). SS eading eading, r CE r O nd nd 2003 State Legislative Scorecard IVE PR T IA eading. House 2 T r eading (failed 22-27) votes r nd nd N INI IZE T S ON CI CK A T As proposed, Sen. bill, Debbie Shea’s SB 436, would have ls, Montana across letters and emails to legislators from oject Vote Smart,Vote oject of the interests and individuals representing l T akeside). open to the public. Their meetings are enate after a successful motion to place the bill, which had been or more information about this advisoryor more committee or the HB yanide ban, by to undermine the process but also with a proposal epeal two citizen-passed initiatives affecting game farms and a epealed the ban on new open-pit cyanide-leach mines. Citizens where it passed 53-47.where Conservation community position: oppose. The bill was heavily amended in the Senate some but to address not all of MCV’s concerns. Signed into law. defending both the process, which has been available to Montanans since 1906, and the decisions made by voters. Many at being told their initiative vote communicated their displeasure was unimportant or wrong. can visit MCV’s web site for You information on the outcome, for each legislative district, of the game farm and cyanide initiatives. Please also see the article on page 14 about the impact of Constitutional Amendment 37 and Constitutional Amendment 38, passed by voters in November 2002, collected. are initiative petition signatures which change how In January 2003, Secretary also appointed a of State Bob Brown compliance HAVA 20-member committee to develop Montana’s plan. It includes several county election administrators, Voters, organizations including the LeagueWomen of AARP, and Pr civil rights, the disabled, and American Indians, as well as Sen. Carolyn Squires (D-Missoula) and Rep. Bernie Olson (R- L F 190 rulemaking process, contact Secretary of State Bob Brown’s office at 406.444.2034. in the Scorecard is HB 190 2 The House vote featured A this session with not only confronted attempts to Montanans were r c which initiatives get placed on the ballot. Conservationists prevailed, thanks to effective organizing by MCV and other groups and a dramatic public response, of phone with many hundreds ca Undermining the citizen initiative process – HB 719 HB 719 (A. Olson, R-Roundup) would have significantly impacted the citizen initiative process: the moving it proposed petition submission date back two months, in petition resulting supporters at the Primary no longer being able to gather signatures Election, gathering and most election signature occurring in winter. subjective and potentially more It added much confusing language to the petition, a simplified law allowing changed current title, an affidavit stating whether the signature- and required by the Supreme Court rejected in was paid - a provision gatherer Colorado. and died in the The bill passed the House narrowly S killed in a Senate committee, 2 on Cyanide Ban Repeal – SB 436 r (passed 52-47) and Senate 2 featured. Conservation community position: oppose. 4 CONSERVATION C-37 AND C-38: CONSERVATION VOTES THAT COUNT EASEMENTS ATTACKED THE SAGA CONTINUES Description of Votes Used in Montana Conservation Voters 2003 Legislative Scorecard CHANGES TO ELECTION LAWS elections will be known. The number of provisional ballots thrown The 2003 Montana Legislature saw unprecedented attacks on For almost a century, Montanans have taken pride in their right to out could well determine the outcome of a close election. Montana’s most important open space preservation tool: make laws and amend the Constitution through citizen initiatives. The 2003 Legislature passed a sweeping reform of the Montana voting process. While much of it is based on new requirements in perpetual conservation easements. This was the first session They have used the process judiciously and sparingly – in the 97 There were three primary areas of opposition to HB 190, the federal Help America Vote Act, some provisions go far beyond such bills have appeared, all coming from the conservative years since citizens acquired this right, there have passed fewer Montana’s proposal to implement HAVA, and in all three areas, federal law. legislators who usually fight for private property rights. After than 50 laws as a result of citizen initiative drives. Montana went beyond federal requirements. Attempts to delete much hard work by land trusts, conservation lobbyists, and the three stricter requirements failed in both committees as well as Federal Election Law Changes of 2002 affected state agencies, all of these pieces of legislation died in In November 2002, however, Montana voters passed in the House and Senate, with virtually all Republicans voting to committee. Constitutional Amendment 37 and Constitutional Amendment Two years after the infamous Presidential election of 2000, keep the stricter requirements and Democrats voting to make state 38 (C-37 and C-38), changing the signature gathering Congress passed legislation seeking to improve election law consistent with federal law. HJR 7 (Representative Debby Barrett, R-Dillon). The basic distribution requirements for Constitutional and statutory administration. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) premise behind this study resolution was that perpetual initiatives from legislative district to counties. These changes give requires states and municipalities to meet certain standards in Identification easements do not comply with Montana’s Constitution. a disproportionate amount of political power to the few and conducting Federal elections. It provides for new voter registration Under Montana’s new law, all voters must show a copy of violate the principle of “one person, one vote.” They also make it and identification requirements, and calls for states to develop a appropriate identification to vote. Absentee voters will have to mail HB 725 (Representative Rick Maedje, R-Fortine). HB 725 more difficult to qualify an initiative for the ballot. single, uniform, centralized, computerized voter registration list, the identification in with their ballot. Acceptable identification would have effectively eliminated conservation easements in the assign a unique identifier to each legally registered voter, and includes a copy of a current and valid photo identification, or a state by significantly increasing the costs of designing and C-37 and C-38 were not the result of a grassroots citizen implement a reasonable system of file maintenance to remove copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government developing easements, prohibiting landowners from receiving movement but were referred to the ballot by the Legislature at the ineligible voters. check or document, or Montana’s voter registration confirmation federal tax benefits from donated easements, making each behest of special interest lobbyists who have opposed several which will be sent to all registered voters notifying them of their conservation easement transaction subject to governmental initiatives passed by voters and saw C-37 and C-38 as the means In addition, state voting systems must permit voters to verify their new districts. Rules currently being drafted by the Secretary of review and approval or disapproval, and more. to make it harder for citizens to use the ballot for initiatives and selections on the ballot, notify them of overvotes (voting for two State’s office will determine what will constitute acceptable constitutional amendments. different people) and permit them to change their votes before identification. SB 251 (Senator Keith Bales, R-Otter). SB 251 would have casting their ballot, as well as create a permanent paper record that restricted habitat protection programs administrated by These amendments violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. can be manually audited. Other HAVA provisions address types of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), to using short-term Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1969, invalidated the Absentee ballot request collection voting machines, access for the disabled, alternative language HB 190 as amended requires a standardized form for the absentee leases, rather than perpetual easements. county distribution requirement for petitions in an Illinois law accessibility, and create a new Election Assistance Commission saying, “This law applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely ballot request, and allows a third party to deliver absentee ballot (EAC) that will administer HAVA and eventually assume certain requests to the election administrator if the party provides the Conservation easements give private landowners an important settled counties and populous counties alike, contrary to the duties related to elections that were previously under the authority tool to use to protect their property from residential subdivision. constitutional themes of equality among citizens in the exercise of electors with receipts for the requests. This latter provision, of the Federal Elections Commission. Montana’s Open-Space Land and Voluntary Conservation political rights. The idea that one group can be granted greater however, was rendered moot by passage of HB 563 (Laszloffy, R- Easement Act is one of the state’s most important land use tools voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote Laurel) which prohibited virtually all third-party collection of for the conservation of open space, wildlife habitat, our bias of our representative government.” Montana’s Election Law Changes – HB 190 absentee ballot requests. Third parties may include candidates, agricultural heritage, and rural landscapes. Since the Act passed Supported by the Secretary of State and county election political parties, nursing homes or anyone who offers to deliver in 1975, it has allowed Montana’s landowners to permanently In 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill cited this same administrators, the Montana legislature passed HB 190, sponsored another voter’s absentee ballot request to an election administrator. protect more than 1.1 million acres, with 780,000 acres decision in finding Idaho’s geographic distribution requirement by Rep. Cindy Younkin, R-Bozeman, which requires ALL voters, protected by Montana’s private land trusts, 257,000 acres with unconstitutional in Idaho Coalition United for Bears v Cenarrusa. not just those who registered by mail and didn’t show appropriate Absentee voting period FWP, and 142,000 acres with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Idaho statute is similar to the Montana amendments in that, identification at that time - as required by HAVA - to show an Montana has reduced the minimum days available for absentee Service. in addition to a total number of signatures equal to 6 percent of identification to vote. While perhaps well intentioned, the law voting from 45 to 30 days, and increased the number of days before the state’s registered voters at the time of the last general election, multiplies the universe of voters who must show identification to the election when the Voter Information Pamphlet is available Find out if your legislators support the ability of landowners to proponents had to gather signatures from 6 percent of the vote by more than three or four times, thus greatly expanding the from 2 weeks to 30 days. Many organizations unsuccessfully urged adopt conservation easements, and make your views known. It’s registered voters in 22 of the state’s 44 counties. likely number of provisional ballots – those ballots that may the legislature to maintain the current 45 day absentee voting the only way we can ensure that future attacks on Montana’s ultimately get thrown out because the voter did not provide a period. If ballots are sent out more than 30 days before an election, conservation easement laws meet the same fate as the ones Some citizen groups are so concerned that the changes made by proper identification when voting. You can expect long lines at the which is at the discretion of the election administrator, the introduced in the 2003 Legislature. C-37 and C-38 will make it so difficult for the public to voting booths – unless every voter comes prepared with valid administrator will include a notice that the Voter Information participate in their government that they intend to challenge the identification. Even long-time voters may end up casting Pamphlet will be provided as soon as it is available. amendments in court. For more information about these provisional ballots – votes which may be thrown out if valid Contributed by Janet Ellis, Montana Audubon amendments or the potential lawsuit, contact MontPIRG at identification is not subsequently provided. www.pirg.org/montpirg or MCV’s web site at www.mtvoters.org. The success of these voting changes will depend largely on the rules now being developed by the Secretary of State to implement A provisional ballot will only be counted as a valid vote if the the provisions of HB 190, and the staffs of county election Contributed by David Ponder, Montana Public Interest Research elector provides the appropriate identification to the election Group and Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, Montana Conservation Voters administrators who now have their own burden – at their request administrator by 5 pm the day after election. A mailed – of asking every single voter for identification. The rulemaking identification must be postmarked by that time as well, leading to starts in May 2003, and is open to the public. a potential delay of several days before the outcome of close

14 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 3 NEW LEGISLATIVE KNOW THE SCORE! Scorecard Snapshot DISTRICTS Montana State Legislature Scores 2003 2001 1999 When you vote, you exercise one of the most important rights – and Score avg 42.7% 42.3% 42.7% COMING SOON responsibilities – you have as a citizen. But it doesn’t end there. Democrat score avg 85% 85% 83% TO YOUR AREA Candidates may make lots of promises to get your vote. Did they Republican score avg 8% 13% 17% keep them? Did they vote the way you expected them to, or want Senate: 2003 2001 1999 House: 2003 2001 1999 them to? Every decade following the federal decennial Score avg 40% 39% 42% Score avg 44% 44% 43% census, Montana establishes new Democrat score avg 78% 76% 82% Democrat score avg 88% 89% 83% congressional and legislative districts. The This Scorecard helps highlight the real stewards of Montana’s natural Republican score avg 13% 15% 20% Republican score avg 5% 12% 15% Montana Constitution provided that this resources, those who see Montana’s economic future inextricably redistricting is to be done not by the legislature entwined with the health and diversity of her clean air and water, fish County Comparisons but by a 5-person citizen member Commission. On February 5, 2003, this and wildlife, local communities, and outdoor recreational Comparison of delegation voting records for the eight most heavily populated counties for 2003, 2001 and Commission, which had been appointed opportunities. It separates the champions of Montana’s rich heritage 1999. The comparisons reflect the MCV scores for all legislators in that county, using the same districts for during the 1999 legislative session, adopted its from those who give lip service to caring about our environment, or each session, not just for legislators who have been in all three sessions. final Statewide Redistricting Plan. no service at all. Commissioners submitted the plan to County Comparisons Senate House Secretary of State Bob Brown as provided in County 2003 Avg 2001 Avg 1999 Avg 2003 Avg 2001 Avg 1999 Avg In developing this Scorecard, MCV consulted with various the Montana Constitution, but Secretary Yellowstone 28% 27% 27% 42% 43% 42% conservation and public interest groups to help identify a selection of Brown refused to accept the plan based on a Missoula 62% 62% 69% 65% 78% 71% bill passed hurriedly by the Republican- legislative proposals that: Cascade 61% 61% 64% 61% 57% 58% dominated legislature and signed by Governor a) Are important to Montana Conservation Voters members; Martz the previous day. This bill, HB 309, Flathead 6% 10% 27% 16% 12% 20% b) Reflect a broad cross-section of issues significant to various changed the allowable population deviation Gallatin 60% 36% 44% 41% 40% 39% among legislative districts from the five conservation groups; Lewis and Clark 58% 50% 45% 55% 44% 49% percent criterion adopted in 2000 and used by c) Show a clear choice by legislators for or against a conservation Ravalli 0% 7% 14% 9% 25% 25% the Commission during its two-year planning position; Silver Bow 33% 42% 40% 61% 72% 51% process to one percent. d) Reflect a certain level of debate, requiring potentially difficult choices. Most encouraging and disappointing scorecard changes Representative HDCity % +/- Secretary Brown instead filed a complaint for Below is a snapshot of the voting record for legislators Clark, Paul (D) 72 Trout Creek 24% declaratory judgment requesting the court to determine the constitutionality and statutory We also included votes on certain resolutions on federal issues for whose MCV voting record changed at least 10 percentage Witt, John (R) 89 Carter 14% validity of the Statewide Redistricting Plan. A informational purposes, but did not include those votes in legislators’ points from 2001 to 2003. Those with the greatest change Wanzenried, David (D) 68 Missoula 12% hearing for partial summary judgment on the scores since they have no force of law. Rather, they set a climate for (at least 20 percentage points) are in bold. A positive Shockley, Jim (R) 61 Victor 12% complaint was held May 15, 2003 at the First dialogue and can influence the officials who receive them. number means an increase in the score, a negative number Jacobson, Hal (D) 54 Helena 11% Judicial District Court in Helena, and means a decrease. For example, “Sen. John Cobb, 48%” Lindeen, Monica (D) 7 Huntley 10% supplemental briefs were requested by May Keane, Jim (D) 36 Butte -11% 29, 2003. However the court rules, the issue This scorecard is a key indicator of a legislator’s support for illustrates that his MCV score increased from 33% in 2001 will likely be appealed to the Montana conservation issues. Other factors include committee votes, floor to 81% in 2003, a change of 48%. Brown, Roy (R) 14 Billings -11% Supreme Court. The Commission believes it speeches and motions, leadership in committee or on the floor or in Bookout-Reinicke, Sylvia 71(R) Alberton -12% has fulfilled its constitutional and statutory Voting score changes > 10% caucus, and work behind the scenes to kill or pass legislation. We’ve Fisher, Stanley (R) 75 Bigfork -12% obligations, and members expect a final Senator SD Town % +/- Fuchs, Daniel (R) 15 Billings -12% decision on the Plan effective for the 2004 noted some instances where actions, besides floor votes, made a Cobb, John (R) 25 Augusta 48% Hedges, Donald (R) 97 Antelope -12% election. difference in the outcome of legislation and showed contradictions in Elliott, Jim (D) 36 Trout Creek 28% Jackson, Verdell (R) 79 Kalispell -12% legislators’ actions. Kitzenberg, Sam (R) 48 Glasgow 24% You can find the Plan adopted in February Mood, Doug (R) 58 Seeley Lake -12% Johnson, Royal C (R) 5 Billings 20% 2003 and access detailed maps of the new state Olson, Alan (R) 8 Roundup -12% Thanks to Anne Hedges, Patrick Judge and Jeff Barber of the legislative districts at: Sprague, Mike (R) 6 Billings 12% Lawson, Bob (R) 80 Whitefish -12% Montana Environmental Information Center; Janet Ellis of Montana McGee, Dan (R) 11 Laurel -12% Galvin-Halcro, Kathleen (D)48 Great Falls -14% Audubon; John Wilson of Montana Trout Unlimited; Michele http://www.leg.state.mt.us/content/committees Mahlum, Dale E (R) 35 Missoula -12% Gallus, Steve (D) 35 Butte -18% /interim/2001_2002/dist_apport/FEBfinal.inc. Reinhart and Cody Ferguson of Northern Plains Resource Council; Glaser, Bill (R) 8 Huntley -13% Lehman, Larry (R) 87 Power -18% Don Judge of the Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club; David Keenan, Bob (R) 38 Bigfork -14% For more information, contact Susan Byorth Rome, Allen (R) 56 Garrison -18% Ponder and Matt Leow of Montana Public Interest Research Group; Harrington, Dan W (D) 19 Butte -20% Fox, Legislative Services Division, at Schrumpf, Clarice (R) 12 Billings -18% 406.444.3064. Bob Throssell of the Montana Wildlife Federation; and Tim Davis Mangan, Jeff (D) 23 Great Falls -44% Matthews, Gary (D) 4 Miles City -20% of the Montana Smart Growth Coalition for their assistance. bold = changes of 20% or more from last session Lenhart, Ralph (D) 2 Glendive -30%

2 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 15 CONTACT YOUR NOW THAT YOU KNOW THE SCORECARDDear Scorecard READER Reader, MONTANA LAWMAKERS SCORE, TAKE ACTION! Welcome to the 2003 Montana Conservation Voters State Legislative Scorecard, designed to help you identify those legislators who strongly value conservation principles and Montana’s right For complete contact information on all of your Montana Conservation Voters is committed to impacting the to a clean and healthful environment. Just as importantly, this scorecard identifies those Montana Legislators, use the Legislator Lookup on political process to make sure that legislators make decisions legislators who not only do not support protection of our air and water, wildlife and open the MCV website: mtvoters.org/leg_lookup.html space, but who also are willing to blatantly disregard the voice of the voters. that enhance and protect clean air and water, public health, Governor Judy Martz fish and wildlife, forests and our constitutional right to a clean A consistent theme that ran through this session was the belief of some legislators that Governor’s Office and healthful environment - values held in high regard by Montana voters don’t know what they are doing and cannot be trusted to help set PO Box 200801, State Capitol Montanans. Take action to make a lasting difference for the Montana’s future course. Over a dozen bills were introduced that would have Helena, MT 59620-0801 environment! overturned voter-passed initiatives or make it harder for Montanans to speak through (406) 444-3111 the initiative process. Attorney General Mike McGrath 1. Know the score and contact your legislators. Call, Backed by the mining, game farm and tobacco industry, legislators said we had been PO Box 201401 write or email your legislators to thank them for votes “hoodwinked” and were “confused” when we passed reforms of game farms that threaten our wild, Helena, MT 59620-1401 in support of the conservation community’s position. prized game herds. Other legislators said they had to overturn voter-passed initiatives in order to “protect the minority from (406) 444-2026 Legislators who stand up for the environment deserve [email protected] the tyranny of the majority.” And of course there was Rep. Cindy Younkin’s now-famous statement that “Just because it was our appreciation. Ask for explanations from passed by the will of the people doesn’t make it right.” Secretary of State Bob Brown legislators who voted against conservation priorities. PO Box 202801, State Capitol The Montana State Legislature meets for regular Fortunately, voters refused to be silenced on these important issues, and the majority of legislators showed their respect for Helena, MT 59620-2801 session in Helena from early January to the end of the will of the people by defeating these attacks. (406) 444-2034 April in odd-numbered years. Visit the MCV web [email protected] site at www.mtvoters.org or the Legislature’s home Take the bill to overturn the 1998 voter-approved ban on new cyanide heap leach mines. The law protects Montana’s wells, lakes and prized trout stems – like the Big Blackfoot – from this destructive practice. Montana Conservation Voters worked page at http://leg.state.mt.us for their contact State Auditor John Morrison with other environmental and conservation groups to stop the attack on this voter-approved measure, and flooded legislators PO Box 4009 information now that legislators are at home. with phone calls and emails until the bill died. This was on the heels of the successful campaign to stop a repeal of the Game Helena, MT 59604-4009 Farm initiative. We prevailed again when a bill to severely limit the initiative process was killed by a narrow margin. We take (406) 444-2040 2. Share this Scorecard and publicize votes. pride in how effectively Montanans stood up for their rights, and thank all of you who called, emailed, traveled to Helena or [email protected] Complimentary copies of this scorecard can be visited with legislators over transmittal to make your voice heard. Superintendent of Public Instruction viewed or ordered at www.mtvoters.org.To host a Linda McCulloch gathering to discuss scorecard results or do publicity Not as fortunately, some very bad bills passed. Thanks to the 2003 Legislature, coal companies were put in charge of when, PO Box 202501 and letters to the editor, contact us. how and what they will reclaim after mining is over, freeing them to leave deeper scars on the land. Montanans who treasure Helena, MT 59620-2501 the character of their communities are left with fewer tools to work with when out-of-state developers arrive to exploit their (406) 444-3095 neighborhoods. Citizens who want to protect their clean air, water and property will now have to pay more to exercise their [email protected] 3. State legislative reapportionment will change house rights in court. As demonstrated in Libby and East Helena, those who suffer the most from pollution are often the least likely and senate districts in many parts of the state to be able to afford fighting big polluters. The legislature even made it harder for citizens to vote. Sen. Max Baucus beginning with the 2004 election. Attend an MCV 511 Hart Senate Office Bldg. meeting in your area to discuss reapportionment, But let’s be clear about one point. Many of these bills passed by narrow margins, with strong opposition voiced by legislators Washington, D.C. 20510 term limits and the 2004 election. who stand up for their environment and constituents. (202) 224-2651 (800) 332-6106 (from MT) The 2004 elections are a great opportunity to correct the misguided priorities in Helena by electing a conservation majority (Fax) (202) 224-4700 4. Vote for pro-conservation candidates. The best way that respects the will of Montana voters. to show your approval or disapproval of legislators’ Sen. Conrad Burns votes. Contact us about endorsed candidates and how 187 Dirksen Senate Office Building This scorecard gives you the information you need to start that process now. Find out how legislators voted on issues Washington D.C. 20510 to help. important to you. Use this information to hold legislators accountable for their actions. Thank legislators who have shown (202) 224-2644 a respect for the voters and who have stood up for Montana values. Give your friends, neighbors and relatives this information. 1-800-344-1513 5. Join Montana Conservation Voters, the non-partisan And vote for conservation candidates. Together we can be a voice and catalyst for positive change in Montana. (202) 224-8594 fax political voice of Montana’s conservation and Rep. Denny Rehberg environmental community. Make your voice and your 516 Cannon House Office Building vote count. Work to hold elected officials Washington, DC, 20515 accountable, and support conservation candidates. Ph: 202-225-3211 Howard Strause, Co-President, Montana Conservation Voters Fax: 202-225-5687

16 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 1 VOTE ON TERM LIMITS IN 2004! Montana voters will have a chance to vote to extend legislative term limits in the 2004 election. With the passage of House Bill 277, sponsored by Representative Monica Lindeen (D-Huntley), a constitutional amendment will be placed on the ballot to extend 2003 State Legislative Scorecard legislative term limits from 8 years to 12 years. “It has become obvious that term limits are detrimental to the legislative process and the legislative institution,” said Lindeen. “The CONTENTS legislature is supposed to represent the people, but the people’s voices are being diminished because of term limits,” she continued. Message from the President ...... Page 1 Know the Score...... Page 2 Montana voters approved term limits in 1992, limiting legislators to 8 years in any 16 years as a state representative and 8 years in any Reapportionment ...... Page 2 16 years in the state senate. The proposed constitutional amendment extends this to 12 years in the House (6 terms) and 12 years in Conservation Votes That Count...... Page 3 the Senate (3 terms). House Voting Record ...... Page 8 Senate Voting Record ...... Page12 Of the 100 members of the Montana House of Representatives in 2003, only 33 served in the House in 1999, and 2 Representatives Special Feature: served previously in the Senate. Almost 2/3 of the House of Representatives have served in only 2 regular sessions. Of the 50 Montana Conservation Easements Under Attack; Ballot Measure Changes ...... Page 14 State Senators, only 17 also served in the Senete in 1999. Over 80% of Montana’s 2003 Senators had only one or two sesson’s worth A Snapshot of the Scores ...... Page 15 of experience in the Senate, through several had served previosly in the House. The Senate loses another 20% of its members due to Take Action – Contact your legislators...... Page 16 term limits in 2004. Term Limits ...... Page 17 A recent Lee Newspaper poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Research found that 46% of Montana voters support the ballot measure, Election Year Calendar ...... Page 17 while 48% oppose it. This is within the 4% margin of error and shows an even split among voters. Join Montana Conservation Voters...... Page 17 Lindeen will be featured in a public television program to discuss term limits, along with Senator Fred Thomas (R-Stevensville), a is the non-partisan political voice of Montana’s conservation and environmental community. former term limit proponent who has since decided they aren’t a good idea, and Senator Mike Cooney (D-Helena) a former Montana MCV is dedicated to informing voters of the votes and actions of elected officials – from the Courthouse to Congress – affecting Secretary of State. Check your TV guide for local broadcast information. clean water and air, fish and wildlife, public health, open space and citizen participation in government. As a statewide membership organization, Montana Conservation Voters engages voters to support candidates who stand up for conservation values. Montana 2003 ELECTION CALENDAR – TAKE NOTE AND VOTE IN THIS YEAR’S MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS! Conservation Voters’ structure includes a board of directors, chapters in several Montana communities, a Political Action Committee August 11, 2003: Last day to register to vote for Primary Election. October 6, 2003: Last day to register to vote for General Election. to work effectively in elections, and a full time professional staff with offices in Billings, Livingston and Missoula. August 20, 2003: Primary Absentee Ballots available. October 20, 2003: General Election Absentee Ballots available. Montana Conservation Voters Board of Directors Co-President Howard Strause, Great Falls September 8, 2003: Noon deadline for requesting absentee ballot November 3, 2003: Noon deadline for requesting absentee ballot for Primary. for General Election. Co-President John Tubbs, Helena Secretary Molly Galusha, Missoula September 9, 2003: Primary Election. November 4, 2003: General Election. Treasurer Virginia Court, Billings (also Yellowstone County Chapter Representative) Directors: Corky Clairmont, Pablo Julia Page, Gardiner Pat Sweeney, Billings Yes! I want to help protect Montana’s natural resources and support conservation Joan Montagne, Bozeman candidates – from the Courthouse to Congress. Stan Frasier, Helena Butch Waddill, Florence Enclosed are my membership dues of: Laura Stafford, Helena ____$25 Individual Member ____$50 Supporting Member ____$250 Contributing Member Mary Ellen Wolfe, Bozeman, Gallatin-Park County Chapter Representative ____$35 Household Member ____$100 Patron Member ____$500 Sustaining Member Montana Conservation Voters Staff ____$1,000 Benefactor ____$10 Living Lightly/Student ____$______Other Ben Birdsill, Webmaster, Data Base Administrator, Billings Monika Heinbaugh, Organizer/Program Associate, Billings Kelley Hubbard, Organizer/Program Associate, Missoula Name(s):______Email:______Tammy Josti, Office Assistant, Billings Theresa Keaveny, Executive Director, Billings Address:______Phone:______Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, Program Director, Livingston City______State:______Zip:______

Box 63 Box 474 Box 9335 ___ Visa ___ Mastercard Card # ______Exp. Date______Billings, MT 59103 Livingston, MT 59047 Missoula, MT 59807 Make Checks payable to MCV. 406/254-1593 FAX 406/254-1609 Phone/FAX 406/222-9093 Phone/FAX 406/542-1055 ___ I want to volunteer. Let me know how I can work to elect conservation candidates.

** Contributions to Montana Conservation Voters support political action and are not tax deductible.** [email protected] www.mtvoters.org Clip and return to: Montana Conservation Voters, Box 63, Billings, MT 59103 2003 State Legislative Scorecard Montana Conservation Voters 17