# data[].attributes.body
Back side- Hunter

# data[].attributes.body
(VIDEO)This is the third installment of a several-part series on results of the MTN-MSU poll on 2018 electoral races in Montana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MTN / MSU Pre-Election Survey Ballot Measures Analysis

# data[].attributes.headline
Montana Native Vote fears voter suppression; polling stations cite the law

# data[].attributes.subject
Montana Native Vote fears voter suppression; polling stations cite the law

# data[].attributes.body
Possible voter discrimination at the polling place affects who is able to vote.

"'In years past, we’ve had issues in Fort Peck a lot, where they’ve run out of ballots or they’ve closed early, or people decide they’re going to take a long lunch break in the five hours the office is open,' Berry said."

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Members of Montana Native Vote on Tuesday said several polling stations have turned away Native American voters, raising concerns over potential voter suppression within the Native community.

Leah Berry, political director with Montana Native Vote, cited issues in Poplar, Great Falls and Rocky Boy. Two of those three polling locations disputed the claims, saying they're only following the law.

"I think in Great Falls, it was a lack of competency and not ill-intentioned," Berry said Tuesday. "But at Fort Peck, I personally think the two people working the office were non-Native and (the voter) was a Native, and they were very unfriendly, even when I walked in the office."

That instance occurred last week when a low-income Native American voter was no longer able to access his Post Office box, and therefore his ballot. Berry took him into the Poplar polling station to fill out the form for a replacement ballot, which he should have received on the spot.

"But they wouldn't issue him a new ballot," Berry said. "I learned after talking to the election officials that they had not allowed him to pick up a ballot the day before, either. They said they didn't have the correct replacement forms for him to fill out at the office."

For many voters using the Poplar office, that's a challenge given the next closest polling station sits 22 miles away at Wolf Point.

Berry said the Poplar location has been unfriendly to Native American voters in the past. She said it's open just two days a week and only for five hours, and it often runs out of forms.

"In years past, we've had issues in Fort Peck a lot, where they've run out of ballots or they've closed early, or people decide they're going to take a long lunch break in the five hours the office is open," Berry said.

"I think it's not really caring about providing the services to those specific tribal communities. It almost always feels like a burden that they have to provide these. There's not a dedication to providing those services for those communities."

Jan Pancratz, deputy to the elections administrator in Roosevelt County, said it's impossible for the Poplar office to run out of ballots because the facility has a ballot chart machine, allowing ballots to be printed on demand.

She said the individual voter in question was asked to retrieve his issued ballot from the Post Office.

"He was just asked to get his ballot and vote the ballot that was given to him," Pancratz said. "He didn't state that he had lost it. He just that he didn't have it. It wasn't that it was unavailable to him. It was right there at the Post Office."

Montana Native Vote said it ran into issues in Great Falls after it turned in 50 voter registration forms on the last day the forms would be accepted. Berry said the office called the next day and said it couldn't verify the Social Security number on all 50 forms.

Berry said the polling station told Montana Native Vote to take the forms back and find the 50 voters and bring them in to personally verify their Social Security number. Berry said she took images of the forms and said they were properly filled out.

"That was strange," Berry said. "They (the polling station) said they were going to reconfirm that they couldn't confirm their Social Security numbers. They wouldn't say whether or not it was a glitch in their system."

Rina Moore, elections administrator for Cascade County, confirmed that her office had received the voter registration cards in question, though they couldn't be verified based on the information provided by the voters.

"The name, date of birth and Social Security, or the Montana ID or Montana driver's license, has to verify in the system for us to register them," said Moore. "We didn't tell them we couldn't register them, because they've been bringing people in. But we can't put a bunch of people on the voter rolls we can't verify through the Department of Justice."

Moore said there's no chance the system had a glitch. That same day, she said, they registered another 100 people.

"Several of the people (Montana Native Vote) has brought into the office, we can't get them to verify," Moore said. "None of them had any Montana ID or driver's license number. Every one was just the last four of a Social Security number, which is fine, but it has to verify through the Department of Justice, and they don't."

Berry said Montana Native Vote has received reports of instances where the satellite office at Rocky Boy isn't accepting absentee ballots. Rocky Boy couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Montana Native Vote fears voter suppression; polling stations cite the law ~ Missoula Current

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Members of Montana Native Vote on Tuesday said several polling stations have turned away Native American voters, raising concerns over potential voter suppression within the Native community. Leah Berry, political director with Montana Native Vote, cited issues in Poplar, Great Falls and Rocky Boy.

# data[].attributes.body
Via the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Montana - what you need to vote in Montana and a history of court cases involving voting (highlight: many in which Native peoples have been discriminated against).

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting rights are under attack in this country as state legislatures nationwide pass voter suppression laws under the pretext of preventing voter fraud and safeguarding election integrity.

# data[].attributes.body
"'This is our workforce, you know. These are the people that I'm hiring. We hired 20 people last year- many of them new graduates from the university system here in Montana- so we're creating jobs, the economy's booming, we need that workforce,' said Brett Campbell, CEO of WGM Group."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The six-mill tax for higher education was first levied in 1948 and has been reauthorized by voters every ten years since.

Tonight WGM Group hosted a rally and fundraiser in support of the mill.

LR-128, which is how it appears on the ballot, would levy a six mill tax on the taxable value of all real estate and personal property.

The six-mill levy provides ten percent of the university system's total annual funding.

Attendees of tonight's event were mostly local business people. They say the six-mill levy ultimately helps grow their workforce.

"This is our workforce, you know. These are the people that I'm hiring. We hired 20 people last year- many of them new graduates from the university system here in Montana- so we're creating jobs, the economy's booming, we need that workforce," said Brett Campbell, CEO of WGM Group.

NBC Montana reached out to Montanans Against Higher Taxes, which is a group that opposes the levy. We could not get in touch with anyone before print but their website says they "believe that higher education spending has become out-of-control" and they think the university system needs to be reformed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six-Mill Levy on the ballot this November, proponents rally support

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The six-mill tax for higher education was first levied in 1948 and has been reauthorized by voters every ten years since. Tonight WGM Group hosted a rally and fundraiser in support of the mill. LR-128, which is how it appears on the ballot, would levy a six mill tax on the taxable value of all real estate and personal property.

# data[].attributes.body
"According to U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, 'Montanans have seen the value of the six-mill levy for the last 70 years because we know that investing in our kids, the future of this state, is a Montana value. A vote to renew the six-mill levy is a vote to give students the educational tools they need to decide their own futures.'”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Montanans will have a direct say in what we pay when the six-mill university levy comes before us again this election year as Legislative Referendum 128 on the November election ballot.

There may be other states that have statewide voted university levies, but I'm not aware of them. In the case of the six-mill levy, a top-heavy majority of Republican and Democratic legislators voted last year to refer it to Montana voters, as the Legislature has done every 10 years since the 1947 session. It has always passed; it has never been increased.

There may be other issues in Montana that have a history of strong bipartisan support lasting for 70 years, but I'm not aware of those, either. Over the years, conservative and liberal governors including Republicans Tim Babcock, Stan Stephens, Marc Racicot and Judy Martz, and Democrats Tom Judge, Ted Schwinden, Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock have publicly supported the six-mill levy.

Even in this era of increasing partisanship, the six-mill continues to stand out, perhaps uniquely, as a matter on which Montanans across party lines can still agree.

According a recent statement by Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, "I join Montana voters in supporting the continuation of common-sense investments in our schools so that future generations can also benefit from our state's public education system. The six-mill levy has served as the traditional building block of Montana education funding for nearly 70 years, and has also received the bipartisan support of Montana's state representatives and senators, as well as a multitude of community leaders."

According to U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, "Montanans have seen the value of the six-mill levy for the last 70 years because we know that investing in our kids, the future of this state, is a Montana value. A vote to renew the six-mill levy is a vote to give students the educational tools they need to decide their own futures."

These Montana leaders have all realized that that while higher education builds a strong workforce and a strong economy, it also provides vital and ongoing research. In the years since World War II, Montana crop yields have increased by over 100 percent. Research in seeds, soils, drought and temperatures at Montana State University in Bozeman and affiliated agricultural experiment stations around the state have made this happen.

The Center for Structural and Functional Neuroscience at the University of Montana has been a national leader in studying proteins that move small molecules in and out of brain cells. Because these proteins occur in excessive levels on glioblastoma tumors, UM scientists' research on inhibitors may lead to effective new therapies while spurring economic development in Montana.

The six-mill levy is a great, good and uniquely Montana tradition. Our great-grandparents established it for our grandparents, who renewed it for our parents and us at the same rate of six mills. It is now our turn to pass on the same level of support for higher education to our kids and their kids.

Bob Brown is a former Montana secretary of state and state Senate president. He serves as the treasurer of Montanans for the 6-Mill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
center for structural and functional neuroscience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Time to pass along support for six-mill levy to next generation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Montanans will have a direct say in what we pay when the six-mill university levy comes before us again this election year as Legislative Referendum 128 on the November election ballot. There may be other states that have statewide voted university levies, but I'm not aware of them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Voter registration laws serve to prevent rural Native peoples from voting

# data[].attributes.subject
Voter registration laws serve to prevent rural Native peoples from voting

# data[].attributes.body
While this is ND, there are parallels that could apply to Montana

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court declined this month to overturn a North Dakota law that requires voters to present an ID listing their residential address at the polls.

The decision could have a negative impact on tens of thousands of rural voters - many of them Native Americans who live on one of the states five reservations, where residents are not required to have a street address.

Native Americans have long faced unique challenges relating to voter suppression. They were the last to gain suffrage in 1924 and couldn't vote in states like Arizona, New Mexico and Utah until 1948.

"If Native people are constantly being turned away at the polls and having this many problems, it actually [discourages] people from voting further," Danielle Ta'sheena Finn, external affairs director for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (@StandingRockST) and a citizen of the tribe, tells Here & Now's Jeremy Hobson. "My grandma has been turned away at the polls with her passport in 2014, and she felt like, 'Why is it worth going back?' "
On why many Native people in North Dakota don't a have street address
"On the reservation, we're a very spread-out community. And due to that, most of the community members here, hundreds if not thousands of people on Standing Rock, use P.O. box addresses and go to the post office to get their mail and count that as their address. So what we're facing here, and what I believe is the voter suppression, is that many people now have to get new IDs with an actual physical residential address."
On what she's doing to get Standing Rock tribal citizens eligible to vote
"We have to make sure that everyone has identification with their new residential address. So that entails either getting them a new ID card that's issued by the tribal government here, or we have to provide them supplemental material - whether that's a letter from the tribal agency or a utility bill - if they're going to use their old ID. And also making sure people do know their residential address. Because again, like I said, here on the reservation, house numbers are not very common."
On the state government's defense that the law is designed to prevent voter fraud
"I think that's comical because you have people now making up their own addresses, because they do not feel like they should go to the sheriff, who is also our 911 coordinator and the only person in Sioux County who can issue an address. So they're making up their own addresses right now, which is voter fraud. They just created a problem, basically."
On Native people's relationship to the American electoral process
"We've faced voting problems all over the United States. In South Dakota they've had many litigations about voter disenfranchisement and in Montana there were cases of voter suppression among Native people."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Dakota Voter ID Law Could Keep Rural Native Americans From Voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court declined this month to overturn a North Dakota law that requires voters to present an ID listing their residential address at the polls. The decision could have a negative impact on tens of thousands of rural voters - many of them Native Americans who live on one of the states five reservations, where residents are not required to have a street address.

# data[].attributes.headline
Voting While Native American in Montana (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Voting While Native American in Montana (Video)

# data[].attributes.body
Western Native Voice

"Policies weren't created for us back then, they were created against us" - historical precedent for using the weight of government against them.

"Voting is a luxury when you're worrying about food for the children" - non-neutral privilege of voting and who votes

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch Voting While Native American in Montana, a Politics video from NowThis.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Case for Abstaining from Ignorant Voting

# data[].attributes.subject
The Case for Abstaining from Ignorant Voting

# data[].attributes.body
"...voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all."

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, Americans will have an opportunity to vote on a wide range of candidates and ballot initiatives. In many cases, however, we will be voting on candidates and issues that we know very little about. It is rational for most voters to be ignorant about most issues, because the chance of casting a decisive ballot in an election is so extremely low. And the available evidence strongly suggests that much of the public is poorly informed about politics and public policy.

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little. Perhaps you have a good handle on Romney and Obama. But you might not know much about your candidates for governor, senator, congressman, and various local offices, or about the various state and local referenda on the ballot in your area.

It's unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather "the exercise of power over others." If you can't exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.

It would be dangerous to give government the power to forcibly exclude ignorant voters from the franchise. Incumbent political leaders could too easily abuse it to exclude their political opponents or to target unpopular minorities. But there is no such danger if a voter voluntarily chooses not to vote in a particular race because he or she decides they don't have enough knowledge to vote responsibly.

If you abstain from voting, you might worry that the rest of the electorate will take advantage of the situation to bias policy in favor of their narrow self-interest and against yours. But the evidence strongly suggests that most people's political views are only weakly correlated to their self-interest. When voters support bad policies, it is usually out of ignorance rather than selfishness. There are some important exceptions to this generalization(e.g. - opinion on gun control is highly correlated with gun ownership, even after controlling for many other variables). But it does hold true for most major issues in the modern US.

There is a legitimate argument to be had about how low your knowledge level needs to be before you should seriously consider abstaining. The answer depends in part on the knowledge level of the rest of the electorate. Even if you know very little about a given race or issue, you may be justified in voting if the rest of the probable electorate is even worse. But, at the very least, you should probably abstain if you know almost nothing. In that scenario, the average of the rest of the electorate will usually be better, or at least is unlikely to be worse.

In this election, as in several previous ones, I'm going to practice what I preach. I think I know at least as much as the average voter about the presidential and congressional races, and about Virginia Question 1. On the other hand, I know very little about Virginia Question 2, and almost nothing about most of the candidates in the local government elections here in Arlington County. With respect to the local races, my knowledge is diminished by the fact that the candidates don't have party identifications listed on the ballot. Therefore, I can't even utilize my understanding of the general proclivities of the Democrats and Republicans in this area. As a result, I'm going to abstain on most of these issues and leave them to the rest of the electorate, which hopefully knows more.

There is no shame in being ignorant about some, or even many, political issues and candidates. Such ignorance is often unavoidable, given the many races and issues out there and the fact that we all have competing demands on our time. But at least in some situations, it is wrong for us to inflict our ignorance on our fellow citizens by voting on issues we know almost nothing about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Case for Abstaining from Ignorant Voting - The Volokh Conspiracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, Americans will have an opportunity to vote on a wide range of candidates and ballot initiatives. In many cases, however, we will be voting on candidates and issues that we know very little about. It is rational for most voters to be ignorant about most issues, because the chance of casting a decisive ballot in an election is so extremely low.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why are voters asked to decide very specific, quite complex issues?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why are voters asked to decide very specific, quite complex issues?

# data[].attributes.body
This article is talking about California, but argument could be applied to our initiatives easily enough.

"Average voters probably can't even name all of their representatives, let alone explain how the state's finances work. Yet they are called upon to make complex fiscal decisions based usually on campaign mailers and ballot titles."

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Critics of California's voter-initiative process often rail against "ballot-box budgeting," which refers to the way these measures often impose major budget outlays by democratic fiat. Average voters probably can't even name all of their representatives, let alone explain how the state's finances work. Yet they are called upon to make complex fiscal decisions based usually on campaign mailers and ballot titles.

I've got no problem with voters deciding broad, easily understood issues. Should a gas tax increase be repealed? That's the topic of Proposition 6. Had the state attorney general given that one a fair title and summary, it would at least be a simple up-or-down vote on gas taxes. The voting public is perfectly capable of making such decisions-or at least as capable as the not-always-so-brilliant lawmakers who represent them in the Senate and Assembly.

But, increasingly, initiatives involve complex budgeting and regulatory matters that might take hours of analysis to cast an informed vote. They sometimes are placed on the ballot by special interest groups and arguably are money grabs. Others are placed on the ballot by groups with an ideological agenda, but they often are no easier to understand than the bond measures.

A good rule of thumb: If you read the ballot summary, pore over pages of explanation from the admirably fair-minded Legislative Analyst's Office, peruse the official pro and con arguments in the voter booklet and still have no clue what the darn thing would do, then that measure has no business on the ballot. The best thing is to vote "no" on such measures, which are a misuse of the initiative process.

Perhaps the best-but not only-example of this foolishness on the Nov. 6 ballot is Proposition 12, which "establishes new standards for confinement of specified farm animals" and "bans sale of noncomplying products." It sounds simple, in that it proposes minimum space requirements for farmers who raise veal calves, breeding pits and egg-laying hens. But delve into the details, and this one is anything but clear cut.

One finds animal-welfare advocates on both sides of the issue, thus making it nearly impossible to determine whether this potentially costly spate of regulations would even improve the lot of some of the state's farm animals. After spending too much time researching it and still having no idea how to vote, I called my daughter, an agriculture student, and had her explain it to me. Voting really shouldn't be this difficult. (She's a "no.")

For instance, the "yes" argument, signed by the state director for the Humane Society of the United States and two others, argues that the measure "will eliminate inhumane and unsafe products from these abused animals from the California marketplace" and "reduces the risk of people being sickened by food poisoning and factory farm pollution." It argues that it's "wrong to cram a hen tightly in an overcrowded wire cage for her entire life."

There really isn't a spate of food poisoning caused by the state's already highly regulated farms. I'm not immune to concerns about the life of animals, even chickens. In fact, I took a break from writing this column to go into our back pasture and provide some overripe peaches and stale bread to our six hens, and they squawked with joy (hey, it sounded joyful). Nevertheless, wasn't that cage issue resolved a decade ago?

That's when California voters approved Proposition 2, which according to the LAO, "generally prohibits California farmers from housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in cages or crates that do not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs." My entire family voted "yes" on that, even though we're aware of the downside of imposing costly new regulations on the people who provide our food. We have quite a few farm animals (goats and chickens, mostly) and it seems inhumane to have them spend their short and dreary lives in a pen that doesn't allow them any movement.

Proposition 12 would apparently make these restrictions tougher and eliminate work-arounds from the 2008 proposition. But the "no" argument, penned by other animal activists, argues that the initiative will make things worse for our feathered friends: "Falsely promoted as a 'cage-free' measure, Proposition 12, in fact, explicitly legalizes the continued use of egg-factory cages for years to come." Opponents call it "a reckless exploitation of California's initiative process" that "puts in grave danger a wide array of existing consumer, animal, and environmental protection laws."

There need to be limited regulations that reduce animal cruelty, but which don't impede the ability of farmers to provide affordable and healthy food. Does this new initiative advance that idea? I'm as confused about it as ever, but I am certain that measures such as this should be resolved in the Legislature and not at the ballot box.
This column was first published by the Orange County Register. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998-2009. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California's Animal Rights Initiative Is an Abuse of the Ballot Box

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Critics of California's voter-initiative process often rail against "ballot-box budgeting," which refers to the way these measures often impose major budget outlays by democratic fiat. Average voters probably can't even name all of their representatives, let alone explain how the state's finances work.

# data[].attributes.body
"Voting is widely thought to be one of the most important things a person can do. But the reasons people give for why they vote (and why everyone else should too) are flawed, unconvincing, and sometimes even dangerous."

"If you believe your vote is likely to be ill-informed or that a particular race is likely to yield an unfair, unjust, or otherwise bad outcome, you should refrain from participating in a collectively harmful activity, thus keeping your hands clean. Get-out-the-vote campaigns promote precisely the kind of morally condemnable ignorant voting we should be discouraging."

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wearing an "I Voted" sticker on Election Day announces that you are a proud participant in the grand tradition of representative democracy, the worst system except all the others. It says "I care," "I'm informed," and perhaps also "this shirt is machine washable."

On that day (November 6! Mark your calendars!), when Americans are resting from their quadrennial labors of locating a polling place, standing in line, and pushing buttons, pulling levers, filling bubbles, or poking a touch screen, there is a surefire way to start a fight in any bar, church, or bus in the country. Three little words: I don't vote.

Voting is widely thought to be one of the most important things a person can do. But the reasons people give for why they vote (and why everyone else should too) are flawed, unconvincing, and sometimes even dangerous. The case for voting relies on factual errors, misunderstandings about the duties of citizenship, and overinflated perceptions of self-worth. There are some good reasons for some people to vote some of the time. But there are a lot more bad reasons to vote, and the bad ones are more popular.
'Every Vote Counts'
Let's start with the basics: Your vote will almost certainly not determine the outcome of any public election. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories regarding rigged elections or malfunctioning voting machines-although both of those things have happened and will happen again. I'm not talking about swing states or Supreme Court power grabs or the weirdness of the Electoral College. I'm talking about pure, raw math.

In all of American history, a single vote has never determined the outcome of a presidential election. And there are precious few examples of any other elections decided by a single vote. A 2001 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by economists Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter looked at 56,613 contested congressional and state legislative races dating back to 1898. Of the 40,000 state legislative elections they examined, encompassing about 1 billion votes cast, only seven were decided by a single vote (two were tied). A 1910 Buffalo contest was the lone single-vote victory in a century's worth of congressional races. In four of the 10 ultra-close campaigns flagged in the paper, further research by the authors turned up evidence that subsequent recounts unearthed margins larger than the official record initially suggested.

The numbers just get more ridiculous from there. In a 2012 Economic Inquiry article, Columbia University political scientist Andrew Gelman, statistician Nate Silver, and University of California, Berkeley, economist Aaron Edlin use poll results from the 2008 election cycle to calculate that the chance of a randomly selected vote determining the outcome of a presidential election is about one in 60 million. In a couple of key states, the chance that a random vote will be decisive creeps closer to one in 10 million, which drags voters into the dubious company of people gunning for the Mega-Lotto jackpot. The authors optimistically suggest that even with those terrible odds, you may still choose to vote because "the payoff is the chance to change national policy and improve (one hopes) the lives of hundreds of millions, compared to the alternative if the other candidate were to win." But how big does that payoff have to be to make voting worthwhile?
'Voting Is an Investment in the Future'
If you ask a man on the street why rich people are more likely to vote for Republicans, he will probably tell you a story about how the GOP promotes policies that favor businesses and lower the tax burden of the wealthiest people in society. But your sidewalk interlocutor is wrong on two counts. First, rich people are not more likely to vote Republican. (It was a trick question.) Second, study after study, poll after poll, finds that people do not typically vote in ways that align with their personal material interests. The old, for instance, don't support Social Security in higher numbers than the young.

In their seminal 1993 book Decision and Democracy: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference (Cambridge University Press), University of Virginia philosopher and reason Contributing Editor Loren Lomasky and his co-author, Geoffrey Brennan, offer an alternative theory of what drives voters. But first they offer a methodology for calculating the value of a vote. On their account, the expected utility of a vote is a function of the probability that the vote will be decisive, delivering gains (to the individual or society as a whole) if the preferred candidate wins. The probability of casting the decisive vote decreases slowly as the size of the voting pool gets larger, but it drops dramatically when polls show that one candidate has even a slight lead. Which means that in a presidential election, where the number of voters is about 120 million and one candidate is usually polling a point or two ahead on Election Day, you're screwed.

In his brilliant 2011 book The Ethics of Voting (Princeton University Press), on which I have relied heavily for this article, Georgetown University philosopher Jason Brennan (no relation to Geoffrey Brennan) applied the Lomasky/Brennan method to a hypothetical scenario in which the victory of one candidate would produce additional GDP growth of 0.25 percent in one year. Assuming a very close election where that candidate is leading in the polls only slightly and a random voter has a 50.5 percent chance of casting a ballot for her, the expected value of a vote for that candidate is $4.77 x 10 to the −2,650th power. That's 2,648 orders of magnitude less than a penny.

It's not hard to beat that offer. Say you plan to sleep for an extra hour instead of voting. Unless you are astonishingly well rested, an hour of sleep is almost certainly worth more to you than an infinitesimal fragment of a penny. Or say you plan to use that time to write an election-related blog post. The expected social payoff of even the lowest-traffic blog post is higher than the payoff from voting. In fact, an alternative activity plan isn't even necessary: Simply not driving to the polls slightly reduces the chance that you or someone else will die in a car accident on Election Day, which is worth more than your vote can ever hope to be.

Those figures reflect 2006 GDP figures and 2004 voting totals, but it almost doesn't matter what batch of reasonable numbers you plug into the equation. Say you think victory is worth 10 or 100 or 1,000 times more than the roughly $33 billion that 0.25 percent of GDP amounts to. Say the polls show a gap of two percentage points between the candidates. In any plausible scenario, the expected utility of your vote still amounts to approximately bupkes. A vote for a third-party candidate pushes the figure into even more infinitesimal territory.

Voters know this on some level. If they truly believed that each person's vote could be the vote, imagine how they would treat people who disagree with them in early November. Voter suppression happens occasionally, of course. Unscrupulous actors send out flyers that give the wrong date for Election Day or mislead voters about the correct polling place. But if people were operating on the theory that your vote actually counts, far dirtier tricks would be happening everywhere, every day.
'Voting Is a Civic Duty'
No individual vote is likely to determine the outcome of an election; nor is it likely to result in a material gain for the voter. Does that mean people who vote are irrational, evil, or stupid? Not necessarily. Or at least not all of them.

In October 2000, Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw penned a column for Fortune called "Why Some People Shouldn't Vote." During his years-long stint as a columnist for the magazine, this was the only article the editors refused to run. The column, which he published on his personal blog years later, suggests that "the next time a friend of yours tells you he's not voting, don't try to change his mind."

Mankiw's argument draws on a 1996 article by economists Timothy Feddersen of Northwestern University and Wolfgang Pesendorfer of Princeton University that cites the phenomenon of "roll off"-people who make it all the way inside the polyester curtains on Election Day and then leave some blanks on their ballots-to illustrate the point that people who believe themselves ill-informed routinely choose not to vote, thereby increasing the quality of voters who actually pull the lever for one side or the other. There is some additional evidence for this claim: Education is one of the two best predictors of voter turnout (the other is age). Better-educated people are much more likely to vote, which suggests that the pool of voters is better informed and more qualified to make election-related judgments than the pool of nonvoters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wearing an "I Voted" sticker on Election Day announces that you are a proud participant in the grand tradition of representative democracy, the worst system except all the others. It says "I care," "I'm informed," and perhaps also "this shirt is machine washable." On that day (November 6!

# data[].attributes.body
Continue Montana's support of university system by voting to continue 6-mill levy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Montanans will have a direct say in what we pay when the 6-mill university levy comes before us again this election year as LR -128 on the November election ballot.

There may be other states that have statewide voted university levies, but I'm not aware of them. In the case of the six-mill levy, a top-heavy majority of Republican and Democratic legislators voted last year to refer it to Montana voters as the legislature has done every 10 years since the 1947session. It has always passed; it has never been increased.

There may be other issues in Montana that have a history of strong bipartisan support lasting for 70 years, but I'm not aware of those, either. Over the years, conservative and liberal governors including Republicans Tim Babcock, Stan Stephens, Marc Racicot and Judy Martz, and Democrats Tom Judge, Ted Schwinden, Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock have publicly supported the 6-mill levy.

Even in this era of increasing partisanship, the 6-mill continues to stand out, perhaps uniquely, as a matter on which Montanans across party lines can still agree.

Main Hall on the University of Montana-Western in Dillon. (Photo: Courtesy photo)

According a recent statement by Republican Sen. Steve Daines, "I join Montana voters in supporting the continuation of common sense investments in our schools so that future generations can also benefit from our state's public education system. The Six-mill Levy has served as the traditional building block of Montana education funding for nearly 70 years, and has also received the bipartisan support of Montana's State Representatives and Senators, as well as a multitude of community leaders."

According to Senator Jon Tester, "Montanans have seen the value of the Six-mill Levy for the last 70 years because we know that investing in our kids, the future of this state, is a Montana value. A vote to renew the Six-mill Levy is a vote to give students the educational tools they need to decide their own futures."

Students make their way through campus at Montana State University in Bozeman. (Photo: Kelly Gorham, Kelly Gorham/MSU)

These Montana leaders have all realized that while higher education builds a strong workforce and a strong economy, it also provides vital and ongoing research. In the years since World War II Montana crop yields have increased by over 100 percent. Research in seeds, soils, drought, and temperatures at MSU in Bozeman and affiliated Agricultural Experiment Stations around the state have made this happen.

The Center for Structural and Functional Neuroscience at UM has been a national leader in studying proteins that move small molecules in and out of brain cells. Because these proteins occur in excessive levels on glioblastoma tumors, UM scientists' research on inhibitors may lead to effective new therapies while spurring economic development in Montana.

The six-mill levy is a great, good, and uniquely Montana tradition. Our great grandparents established it for our grandparents who renewed it for our parents and us at the same rate of six mills. It is now our turn to pass on the same level of support for higher education to our kids and their kids.
-Bob Brown is a former Montana Secretary of State and State Senate President and serves as the treasurer of Montanans for the Six-mill.
Read or Share this story: https://gftrib.com/2QhM96A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Continue Montana's support of university system by voting to continue 6-mill levy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Montanans will have a direct say in what we pay when the 6-mill university levy comes before us again this election year as LR -128 on the November election ballot. There may be other states that have statewide voted university levies, but I'm not aware of them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Voting is controlling other people when we have no business doing any such thing

# data[].attributes.subject
Voting is controlling other people when we have no business doing any such thing

# data[].attributes.body
"In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution. "

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lysander Spooner No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed the people of the United States, for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of the people as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as we, nor as people, nor as ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Western Native Voice is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization working to inspire Native leadership.

(Katrina)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Western Native Voice | Billings | Natives Leading Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Western Native Voice | Billings | Natives Leading Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Western Native Voice inspires Native leadership so our communities flourish through civic engagement, education, leadership develpment, and policy advocacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The committee of I-128 report on the benefits that the levy has to offer and the history Montana has had in supporting this initiative.

# data[].attributes.body
MSU publicly endorses I-128 in the interest of retaining strong university presence and community support in Montana

# data[].attributes.headline
On The Sidelines Of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don't Vote

# data[].attributes.subject
On The Sidelines Of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don't Vote

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains why so many Americans are not voting. Some of these reasons may include complications with registration, feeling like they do not have a voice, and lack of representation in government.

"Legal obstacles are an important part of the nonvoter story, but there are many millions of Americans who can vote and yet choose not to. Their reasons are vast: Some are apathetic or too busy. Others don't like their choices, they don't think their vote matters, they think the system is corrupt, or they don't think they know enough to vote." (Sam)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just in the past few months, elections in the U.S. have been decided by hundreds of votes.

The 2016 presidential election tilted to Donald Trump with fewer than 80,000 votes across three states, with a dramatic impact on the country. Yet, only about 6 in 10 eligible voters cast ballots in 2016.

Loading...

Among the other 4 in 10 who did not vote was Megan Davis. The 31-year-old massage therapist in Rhode Island never votes, and she's proud of her record.

"I feel like my voice doesn't matter," she said on a recent evening at a park in East Providence, R.I. "People who suck still are in office, so it doesn't make a difference."

Davis might sound contrarian, but she's not. Although these days more Americans say they're enthusiastic about voting in a midterm election than at any point in the last two decades, come Election Day, nonvoters like Davis will still probably be the norm. For every 10 adults eligible to vote, only about four cast a ballot in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

You have to go back to the turn of the 20th century to find a midterm election when a solid majority of people voted (of course, back then, the right to vote was far more limited, so the eligible voting pool was smaller, more male and more white).

Every election cycle there's a lot of attention on who voted and why. But there's another important question: W ho is not voting - and what impact does that have?

The wealthy tend to vote more frequently. Nonvoters are more likely to be poor, young, Hispanic or Asian-American. Some research also indicates they're more likely to align with the Democratic Party.

It's debatable whether election results would be different if the entire population voted, but voting determines more than which candidate wins or loses. It ultimately influences which policies elected officials enact and whose interests candidates ignore and acknowledge.

"The one consistent finding from 1972 up through 2008 and in subsequent elections are that voters and nonvoters have different preferences on economic policies," said Jan Leighley, co-author with Jonathan Nagler of the book Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States.

Her research found that nonvoters are more likely, for example, to support a redistribution of wealth, housing bailouts and expanded social safety net programs.

Hundreds of thousands of nonvoters want to vote, but can't.

In 2016, 4 percent of registered voters did not vote because of "registration problems," according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. Many would-be voters face a range of barriers: voter ID laws, registration difficulty or criminal records. An estimated 10 percent of adults in Florida, for example, can't vote because of a felony conviction.

Some people who want to vote but can't have been removed from the voting rolls. Across the country, the rate at which people are being purged from the voting rolls, a process historically intended to keep records updated, has increased substantially compared to a decade ago, according to a report from the Brennan Center published this summer. The analysis found 4 million more people were purged between 2014 and 2016 than in the equivalent period between 2006 and 2008.

Legal obstacles are an important part of the nonvoter story, but there are many millions of Americans who can vote and yet choose not to. Their reasons are vast: Some are apathetic or too busy. Others don't like their choices, they don't think their vote matters, they think the system is corrupt, or they don't think they know enough to vote.

NPR traveled to four states where different factors affect why people aren't voting at high levels - age, income, education level, and habits.

Las Vegas: The young and disengaged

Shelby Mabis, a stocky blonde Marine corps veteran, remembers taking a government class in high school, but said he didn't learn anything about voting.

"From what all I know about voting is you show up to a poll place and you vote, but I don't know what I need to bring. I don't even know what happens during there," said Mabis, 23, outside of his mandatory political science class at a community college in North Las Vegas. And so he's never voted before.

Mabis is not unusual. There's a high density of people in his area who don't vote, as in many places.

Loading...

"Whenever young people are surveyed, there is a significant lack of knowledge about how exactly the government works, and, therefore, how their vote actually matters," said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the director of CIRCLE, an initiative at Tufts University that studies youth civic and political participation. She recently conducted a survey of working-class youth, and found that nearly 20 percent of young people said they don't think they know enough to be able to vote.

Her research has found that a majority of young people don't think voting is an effective way to change society. They also have major misconceptions about voting. Some think getting a citation for driving under the influence meant they could no longer vote.

But for Mabis, not voting is not just about education - it's about location.

"Right now, being away from home, I don't feel connected to the political system here at all," he said, referring to Nevada. "Since I'm not from here, I really feel like this isn't my home."

Mabis grew up in Missouri, and that's where he registered to vote. But he said it's not easy to stay connected to Missouri politics.

Analysts say this is common - young people are more often transient and so they often feel less invested in local elections.

Youth turnout nationwide for midterms is around 20 percent. For older adults, it's closer to 50 percent. When you look at who votes frequently over many years, the numbers look even starker.

Loading...

In over a dozen interviews, NPR heard similar reasons from young nonvoters for why they don't participate in politics: they don't feel their vote matters, they don't care, they're busy, or they don't feel like they know enough to vote.

But in some cases, they're also particularly eager to choose individual candidates instead of a party label. In 2016, many said they felt uninspired by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

So, like Jonas Rand, they didn't vote for president.

"I don't believe it is actually effective to vote as a main method of accomplishing political change," said Rand, a senior who studies anthropology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Rand follows the news closely, he considers himself a political activist, but he's not a fan of the current two-party political system.

"The system itself is stacked against the citizenry," he said.

He thinks Trump is a "fascist," but still he doesn't see how voting for Clinton would have changed anything, pointing out that Nevada's votes in the Electoral College went for Clinton anyhow.

But if young people don't vote, they're less likely to be targeted by political campaigns. And that worries community activist Francisco Morales.

"It's no coincidence that politicians care a lot about Medicare and Social Security. Seniors vote all the time," said Morales, state director for the Center for Community Change Action.

But, he says, issues that millennials care about, such as student debt, are often overlooked "because politicians are not afraid of our voting bloc."

West Virginia: The class divide

McDowell County, W.Va., is the county with the lowest voter turnout in a state that had one of the lowest turnout rates in the country in 2016.

In Welch, W.Va., the county seat, median household income hovers around $25,000 a year. Sixty one percent of registered voters in McDowell County are nonvoters, people who have voted zero or one time in the last eight elections, according to a review of data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor.

Tammy Lester, a 42-year-old fast food worker in McDowell County, W.Va., can't remember the last time she voted.

"We vote these people in and they don't help McDowell County," she said, as she walked along the deserted streets in the rundown downtown with her daughter. "There's nothing ... there's no jobs when our kids graduate, they have to leave."

Beyond a movie theater, a small pharmacy, and a couple of county offices, most of the storefronts are closed. A couple of years ago, the closest Walmart shut down, and now there's hardly anywhere locals can buy fresh produce.

Lester said politicians always ignore her county. "We are last on everything," she said.

"What good does it do, though, when they'll promise you anything and then it's a lie," she asked rhetorically.

Lester, like many nonvoters, never went to college. She stopped going to school in eighth grade. Research has shown the biggest and most persistent difference between who votes and who doesn't is education and economics. Class is a more accurate predictor of voting behavior than race, ethnicity, gender or any other demographic factor, according to Jan Leighley. Leighley writes in her book Who Votes Now? that nearly 80 percent of high-income earners vote, compared to barely 50 percent of low-income Americans.

"I just don't think my vote matters," said Josh Mullins, as he pushed a stroller along the street in McDowell County.

The last time Mullins, a 33-year-old unemployed former restaurant worker, remembers voting was in 2004 for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Nowadays, he sees no point, saying the system overrules what people want.

"Hillary [Clinton] won the popular vote and we still have Trump for president," he said. "To me it says ... it was just the [Electoral College] that put Trump in office." Voters in each state determined the Electoral College outcome.

Another major reason people say they don't vote is the time and effort taken away from other priorities.

"They're working several jobs, they're low-income, they're low-education, they're younger and they decide the costs are too high for them," explained Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida who tracks turnout at the U.S. Elections Project. "They decide they've got a lot of other things going on in their lives."

Loading...

El Paso, Texas: Low Latino turnout

At the Bowie Bakery, a popular institution in El Paso's Segundo Barrio, or second ward, Christina Rodriguez examined the glass cases filled with Mexican sweet breads, tres leches cakes, cupcakes, cookies and pastries. She ordered a batch of cookies for her 15-year-old's quinceañera and made her way to the door.

Rodriguez, a 38-year-old single, working mom, is always on the go. It's why, she says, she doesn't vote.

"I don't even know who's running,'" she said, laughing with a bit of embarrassment. "I should look into it, but, honestly, I haven't given it more than a thought."

She doesn't have time, she said, to look up the candidates, research their platforms and head to the polls.

"I'd rather not show up and do an uneducated guess," she said. "I don't want to make a mistake."

Growing up, her parents never voted either. Voting, she said, wasn't part of the culture in this border city where over 80 percent of residents identify as Latino.

"Voting is often taught and it may take a couple generations to become a habit," said Lisa Wise, the elections administrator in El Paso.

Some immigrant families are still unfamiliar with voting. Experts suggest this might also explain why Asian-American voter participation is low, despite high education levels. The adult Asian-American population is largely still foreign-born.

"I do what I do to make my life better," said Rodriguez. "I don't depend on (politicians) to change things for me."

But analysts say low Latino turnout in Texas isn't occurring in a vacuum. Texas has long been home to one of the worst voter turnout rates in the country; 51.6 percent of Texans voted in 2016.

Research has shown that competition energizes the electorate, and Texas is largely not seen as a competitive state, particularly in presidential years. Locals say they have a joke in El Paso that the only time a major presidential candidate passes through the city is when he's driving to New Mexico.

Loading...

"Texas has not had the swing state machine that we've seen in other places around the country," said Mindy Romero, director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. "There aren't those resources, money, and investment coming into the state to get every voter." This is also an issue in California, the state with the largest Latino population.

Broad political apathy seeps into local and statewide elections, too. At the Bowie Bakery in El Paso, most customers didn't know that their native son, Beto O'Rourke, is running in a closely watched Senate race against Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. They didn't know that if O'Rourke wins he would be the first Democratic senator elected from Texas in a quarter century.

It also doesn't help engage voters that El Paso has had a history of corrupt elected officials.

Texas is undoubtedly one of the highest nonvoting states in the country, but poor Latino turnout goes far beyond the borders of Texas.

Loading...

More than half of eligible Latinos nationally don't vote. In the last presidential election, Latinos represented 12 percent of eligible voters nationwide, but only 9 percent of the overall electorate on Election Day.

Many analysts predicted that Donald Trump's offensive rhetoric about Latinos would mobilize records numbers of Latino voters in 2016, but turnout remained relatively even with 2012.

"You may be upset about somebody like Donald Trump and what you're hearing," said Romero. "But if you don't see how or why ... politicians and the political landscape matters for you ... you don't think you have agency,"

Romero points to two main reasons so many Latinos are nonvoters: the disconnect they feel with the political process and the anemic investment in outreach.

But Romero doesn't blame the Latino community, she and Leighley both point out that candidates rarely try to reach new voters.

"This idyllic notion that campaigns are out there to get everyone to vote is simply not true," said Leighley. "They need one more vote than their opponent, they will go to people based on those voter files that they know have voted before and they focus on them."

It's more expensive and time consuming to chase down infrequent voters.

Methodology
NPR used data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor, to analyze and illustrate what differentiates nonvoters from frequent nonvoters. Because our data set is derived from a voter file, it's limited to registered nonvoters, as opposed to unregistered nonvoters. We defined a "nonvoter" as someone who voted in zero or one of the last eight elections, and a "frequent voter" as someone who voted in six, seven or eight of the last eight elections. Those eight elections includes both primary and general elections, which means the data goes back to approximately 2010 nationwide, varying slightly in some states like those with off-year elections. So, if someone voted one time in the last eight years, perhaps for Barack Obama in 2008 or Donald Trump in 2016, but did not participate in any other elections, they would be characterized as a "nonvoter."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On The Sidelines Of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don't Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent midterms, 4 in 10 eligible voters cast ballots. Nonvoters talk of apathy, disgust, barriers and other reasons. But those who don't vote, and their interests, can be ignored by candidates.

# data[].attributes.headline
University system resource explaining/promoting 

# data[].attributes.subject
University system resource explaining/promoting 

# data[].attributes.body
I don't know who the board of regents is, but after looking at this, I think this presentation was supposed to convince them to endorse the Levy or fund this interest group.

# data[].attributes.body
This website gives information on why people should vote yes on I-128. It was also interesting because a pop up occurred that asked if I wanted yard signs, had questions or wanted to get involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 6-Mill Levy is a legislative referendum that is voted on once a decade. Since 1948, Montanans have kept their commitment to future generations by approving the 6-Mill levy, increasing opportunity for students, communities and Montana's economy. Voters will decide on the 6-mill levy during the general election in 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
Another pro 6 mill levy, but this is made my a college student She also is drawing everything so it's fun to look at and is short.

# data[].attributes.headline
ANOTHER article on why the 6-mill levy is important

# data[].attributes.subject
ANOTHER article on why the 6-mill levy is important

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every 10 years since 1948, Montana voters have agreed to impose a 6-mill property tax levy to keep tuition low for state college and university students, but there are signs that next year's ballot measure could be in trouble.

A recent poll asked voters if they would support the 6-mill levy if it were on the ballot today, and only 48 percent said yes, the Montana Board of Regents learned last month.

Voter support has been on "a downward slide," Regent Bob Nystuen, a Kalispell banker, warned.

If the measure fails in the November 2018 election, it would cost the University System $20 million a year, said Molly Bell with Hilltop Public Solutions, a Billings firm hired to conduct the pro-levy campaign.

Student tuition would have to be raised 17 to 18 percent to make up for the loss, Bell said.

The margin of victory has been shrinking each decade, falling since 1988 from 64.1 percent yes votes, to 61.3 percent a decade later, and dropping to 56.7 percent in 2008, according to Secretary of State figures.

So even though the election is a year and a half away, Montana University System supporters are already fundraising and gearing up the levy campaign.

It's important to inform voters that this would continue an existing tax, not create a new one, Nystuen said.

The nonprofit group leading the effort, Montanans for Higher Education, held a fundraiser last month at the Hilands Golf Club in Billings, which the governor attended. It also held a breakfast Nov. 19, 2016, before the 'Cat-Griz football game in Missoula. The group's treasurer is Mike Frank, president of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana.

"Now is the time to build a solid foundation," Nystuen told fellow regents. "Never take it for granted."

The 6-mill levy raises money for academics - not dormitories or football games, Bell said.

"It helps ensure anybody can go to college," Bell said. In addition to keeping tuition low, the money promotes economic growth for the state through the activities of the University System and its graduates.

The 2017 Legislature voted overwhelmingly to put the levy on the November 2018 ballot. Supporters range from the Montana Chamber of Commerce and Montana Farm Bureau Federation to the MEA-MFT teachers union, Montana Economic Developers Association and the Montana Associated Students.

Nystuen urged fellow regents to become champions of the levy.

"We need to get the word out," Nystuen said. "We need a groundswell."

Many Montana communities have supported property tax levies for their local K-12 schools, Nystuen said, pointing out that Bozeman voters just passed a $125 million bond issue for high schools by an "amazing" 2-to-1 margin. But at some point there may be "voter fatigue," he said.

The University System and its employees can offer information, but cannot campaign for any ballot measure, said Kevin McRae, spokesman for the commissioner of higher education's office.

Gail Schontzler can be reached at 406-582-2633 or gails@dailychronicle.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6-mill levy for Montana universities may be in trouble

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every 10 years since 1948, Montana voters have agreed to impose a 6-mill property tax levy to keep tuition low for state college and university students, but there are signs that next year's ballot measure could be in trouble.

# data[].attributes.body
The author argues that the initiative is backed by “dark money and corporate interests." (Madison)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Clean up higher education in Montana, vote no on 6-mill levy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Montanans head to the polls this November to decide whether to reauthorize another $200 million in higher property taxes for the Montana University System, they deserve to know the facts about the spending habits of those who will administer these taxpayer funds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Montanans first supported the 6-mill tax for higher education back in 1948.

Every decade since then, voters have reauthorized the levy which raises about $20 million annually from a property tax dedicated to the state university system. On average, that tab amounts to $12 on every $100,000 in property value. The 6-mill levy goes before voters for the eighth time next month.

University of Montana alumnus, Sam Forstag, describes the 6-mill levy as a proud Montana tradition.

"It affects the music we make, the books we write, the culture that we produce."

Others, like Republican State Representative Tom Burnett, says the 6-mill levy is a relic of the past that, under current conditions, he can no longer support.

"It's not prudent to perpetuate things that need changing."

The 70-year-old 6-mill levy is not a new tax. It provides about 10-percent of the state's appropriation to higher education and helps support approximately 40,000 in-state students. University officials say it does that by helping fund day-to-day business operations on Montana's four- and two-year campuses. That includes helping cover salary and benefits for faculty and staff.

Again, Sam Forstag, who served as President of UM's student body before graduating two years ago.

"And so those dollars don't go to any sort of special funds, like athletics or private fundraising. It goes straight to helping students and teachers make sure there's a good classroom experience here in Montana."

But State Representative Burnett says times are changing for higher ed in Montana.

"Students are starting to shun the system. Why should taxpayers have to stay the course to continue their contributions to the system."

The Bozeman Republican sits on the legislature's Joint Appropriation Subcommittee on Education.

"From spring 2011 to spring 2018, enrollment fell as follows: down 29 percent at University of Montana; down 39 percent at Missoula College; down 35 percent at City College, Billings; down 29 percent at Dawson Community College; down 30 percent at Helena College; down 24 percent at MSU-Billings, down 10 percent at Montana Tech," Burnett says.

Burnett says Montana's university system has only two enrollment bright spots: Montana State University and Gallatin College - up 23 and 105 percent respectively.

"We are rich in brick and mortar for a dwindling student population. Many, many, many rooms, hallways - entire buildings - seem lightly utilized to put it very mildly. Nationally and here, we're seeing more money being spent on administration. People question the value of that."

Sam Forstag, who now works as a Type II firefighter with the Forest Service, acknowledges enrollment declines are an ongoing challenge.

"That does not mean that the value of a higher education is any less than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. If anything, with the jobs we're seeing here in Montana, with the rise of the tech industry, the value of a degree is higher than ever. And it's something that we should be making sure that every-day Montanans have access to."

Without voter approval next month, the 6-mill levy will expire. Montana university system officials say if that happens there would be a $20 million funding gap that would have to be made up by either the state general fund - a big ask under Montana's current budget reality - or an up-to-18-percent student tuition hike.

"I really hope that the 6-mill levy is passed because I think that with the recent tuition increases there's already a huge burden. I, for instance, worked two to three jobs, my entire time in college. And I don't think we should be putting students in a position where they have to choose between $30,000, $40,000 in student-loan debt or not getting access to higher education."

Six-mill opponent Burnett says tuition hikes are not a given if the levy isn't renewed.

"Administrators have many tools at their disposal, not just altering tuition. Yes, higher education is an investment, but it has to pass a return-on-investment test. Investors change their investment portfolios all the time in response to changing conditions."

Montana's 6-mill levy has enjoyed bipartisan support over the past seven decades, but its margins of victory have trended downward. In 1988 it passed with 64-percent voter approval. Ten years later that slipped to 61-percent. In 2008 it won with 56 percent of the vote; respectable, but the trend is obvious, and that worries its supporters and bolsters the levy's opponents.

The 6-mill levy ballot issue appears on November's ballot as Legislative Referendum NO. 128.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Views For And Against 6-Mill Levy Funding For Montana University System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Montanans first supported the 6-mill tax for higher education back in 1948. Every decade since then, voters have reauthorized the levy which raises about $20 million annually from a property tax dedicated to the state university system. On average, that tab amounts to $12 on every $100,000 in property value.

# data[].attributes.headline
What the money is used for + pros/cons of the initiative

# data[].attributes.subject
What the money is used for + pros/cons of the initiative

# data[].attributes.body
(Madison)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Annie Waldum is new to political campaigning, but the 20-year-old student has already figured out her best pitch to grab the attention of Montana State University students walking by to dinner.

"My go-to is, 'Do you want to help support the 6-mill levy and keep tuition from going up 18 percent?'" Waldum said. "Anything with tuition, people are like, 'What?!'"

Waldum, a pre-med student, works 10 hours a week for Forward Montana to spread the word to MSU students that they should register to vote and be sure to vote in favor of Initiative 128 on the November ballot.

The initiative would continue for 10 more years the 6-mill property tax that helps support the Montana University System. If voters pass it, the levy is expected to raise roughly $20 million a year to help pay the bills at state campuses and keep students' tuition more affordable.

"Any break students can get is critical to them and critical to the rest of society," Waldum said. "If students can get good jobs when they graduate from college, it will help the overall society and improve the economy."

Montana voters have approved the 6-mill levy seven times, every decade since 1948.

Opponents have also figured out what grabs voters' attention. In Facebook messages and newspaper columns, Montanans Against Higher Taxes has labeled the initiative as "another $200 million in higher property taxes."

Perhaps the biggest supporter of the 6-mill levy in the last 40 years has been Republican Bob Brown, a former secretary of state, Senate president and history teacher. MSU student president back in the late 1960s, Brown first led the pro-levy campaign in 1988.

Now 70, Brown is treasurer of Montanans for the Six Mill. He has been driving from his home in Whitefish in his pickup truck, handing out yard signs and speaking to groups around the state.

"We want to be sure people know it is not a tax increase," Brown said. "It's the same level of support our great-grandparents passed on to our grandparents, going back to 1948."

He drove here to debate the 6-mill levy before a packed crowd at the League of Women Voters forum Wednesday night at the Bozeman Public Library.

Speaking for the opposition was Rep. Tom Burnett, R-Bozeman, who argued that ending the levy wouldn't debilitate the University System because it's a small piece of budgets that total $1.5 billion. In budgets that big, he argued, lots of pieces could be managed better.

Burnett added that the University System has increased spending faster than inflation, even though enrollment has been dropping at most campuses, everywhere but Bozeman. Some new campus buildings at Missoula College and Billings City College are often like "a ghost town," he said.

"Maybe taxpayers are doing enough," Burnett said. "No one is arguing higher education is not valuable. The question is, at what level does it need to be funded?"

Brown told the crowd that the 6-mill levy is "a wonderful, good, proud tradition." Our grandparents did it for their kids, he said, and now it's up to us to pass on the same level of support to our grandkids.

Brown said he remains optimistic it will pass, though he's concerned that public support has slipped. In 1988 the levy passed by 64 percent. It won in 2008, but the yes vote was just 56.7 percent.

"We're concerned because the political climate is more unpredictable than any time in my lifetime," Brown said.

He's also worried about another measure on the ballot - Initiative 185, which would raise cigarette taxes to pay for expanded health care. Tobacco corporations are spending a ton of money, he said, to defeat it as a big tax increase.

"I'm concerned the 6-mill levy might be collateral damage," Brown said.

Burnett said one poll last year pegged support at only 48 percent.

The League of Women Voters audience asked a lot of questions about the 6-mill levy.

Can you guarantee the money goes to tuition, not new buildings and stadium seats? Are Montana taxpayers unfairly subsidizing out-of-state students? What fraction of the budget comes from the levy? How is the money divided up? Which colleges get the money? And how much does the 6-mill levy cost?

For a Bozeman homeowner with a median home value of $326,000, the levy costs about $26.40 a year.

University System budget documents show that the levy is expected to raise $19.03 million this year statewide, a number likely to grow over the decade.

For MSU, the levy will contribute $6.1 million to this year's operating budget, or 10 percent of the $61 million contribution from state taxpayers.

The levy's $6.1 million is about 2.5 percent of the Bozeman campus's $238 million operating budget, said Tracy Ellig, MSU spokesman. MSU relies more heavily on tuition -- $53 million from Montanans and $110 million from out-of-state students this year.

The 6-mill levy money goes into the biggest of eight University System budgets, one with the ungainly name "current unrestricted" budget. That is basically the general operating budget, $542 million this year, that pays for salaries and benefits for custodians to chemistry professors, for heating and lighting, computers and paperclips and other costs of running campuses. This is the same big budget pot that $250 million in student tuition goes into, along with the Legislature's $186 million contribution from state taxpayers.

The 6-mill levy money doesn't go into separate budgets that pay for research, financial aid, dorms, dining halls, bookstores, or constructing new buildings and stadiums. General operating money does help pay for athletics' salaries and athlete tuition waivers, but not buildings or stadium seats. About $250,000 from the levy goes to support MSU athletics, Ellig said.

The 6-mill levy money goes to the state's four-year and two-year campuses in Bozeman, Missoula, Great Falls, Havre, Billings, Helena, Butte and Dillon. The Board of Regents has decided to provide more help to campuses struggling with enrollment, so the University of Montana will get nearly $6.7 million from the levy, slightly more than the Bozeman campus.

As for out-of-state students, their tuition is three times more than charged to Montana students. So even though Montana campuses offer discounts to lure out-of-staters here, regents' policy requires that their tuition remain high enough to subsidize the education of Montana kids.

"We really don't subsidize them," Brown told the audience. "They subsidize us."

The 6-mill levy brings together some strange bedfellows.

Brown pointed to support from across the political spectrum, from both Montana's U.S. senators, Republican Steve Daines and Democrat Jon Tester.

Of the last six governors, three Democrats and three Republicans have supported it, from Marc Racicot and Judy Martz to Brian Schweitzer and Ted Schwinden.

We know "education builds a strong workforce and a strong economy," wrote current Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat. "Let's be sure to make the same commitment to our kids that generations before made to us."

The measure has backing from the Montana Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO, the Montana Farm Bureau and MEA-MFT teachers' union, Montana Associated Students and the Montana Economic Developers Association.

The Montana Legislature agreed to put the levy initiative on the ballot by lopsided votes of 88 to 11 in the House and by 36 to 14 in the Senate.

A handful of Gallatin Valley lawmakers voted against the measure - including Republicans Scott Sales, Gordon Vance and Kerry White. Most legislators voted to place it before voters, including all Democrats and such conservatives as Nancy Ballance, Austin Knudsen, Jedediah Hinkle and Tom Burnett.

Montanans Against Higher Taxes has made the sharpest arguments against the 6-mill levy, in newspaper columns by Tim Adams and Steven Jones, and on its web pages.

The group criticizes the University System for "runaway" spending, paying high salaries, raising tuition, increasing out-of-state students, fostering a campus "rape culture," pushing up rents in campus towns, putting students deep in debt, not supporting guns on campuses or conservative speakers, and "cronyism" that lets the rich - banks, big corporations and building contractors - profit from new university buildings and employee health plans.

Some statements on the Montanans Against Higher Taxes website are in error. The Board of Regents chair isn't paid $284,000. The seven regents serve without salary, according to Blair Fjeseth, University System communications director.

The average Montana professor doesn't earn $127,000. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the statewide average pay for full professors in 2017 was $83,000. At MSU, which has a lot of professors in higher-paying science and technology fields, it was $98,500.

The University System doesn't automatically charge each student $2,000 for Blue Cross health insurance. Of 39,000 students at MSU and UM campuses, just 3,294 or 8 percent chose Blue Cross, and they paid $332 per month, Fjeseth wrote.

Montanans Against Higher Taxes does correctly point out that state taxpayers have put a lot more money into the University System - $85 million more per year in 2017 compared to 2000. The university's spending per student has also increased, from about $4,460 to $7,474.

Levy foes point to the rising spending and tuition as proof that spending is out of control.

University officials, however, say state support has increased because Montana lawmakers agreed with Govs. Schweitzer and Bullock and the Board of Regents to tuition freezes.

University leaders argued that more than a decade of declining state support - it dropped $7 million from 1992 to 2005 - had forced them to raise tuition. That made college less affordable, and put Montana's level of state support for higher education at 48th or 49th in the nation.

Tyler Trevor, deputy commissioner of higher education for budget and planning, said state funding "went backwards" for several years, so that by the Schweitzer era "we were way out of whack."

To correct that and make college affordable, lawmakers, governors and regents agreed to have the state cover millions of dollars worth of the universities' inflationary costs, so that tuition for Montana students could be frozen for six years. This continued after the Great Recession, when many states were slashing university funds.

"At one point we were one of only four states that went up" in state funding, Trevor said, "and we're damn proud of it."

Because of the tuition freeze years, Montana moved up to about 35th in the nation for state funding of higher education.

Still, Trevor said, "No matter how you slice it, Montana is ranked in the lower third of college funding in the nation."

Even with the infusion of state dollars in the tuition freeze years, state funding still hasn't caught up to past levels, Trevor contends. Using dollars adjusted for inflation, he produced charts showing that the state investment in each Montana student this year will be $7,539 - less than the $8,860 in 1992.

The state covered 76 percent of university costs in 1992, and today, 27 years later, the state share has dropped to 41 percent, while students' tuition picks up the biggest share of the bill.

Critics of the 6-mill levy argue that if the levy were defeated, the regents would be forced to trim spending and thereby reduce the debt burden on students.

But levy supporters contend the opposite would happen - if the levy fails, the regents would have to raise $20 million somewhere else, and that would likely mean raising tuition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tradition worthy? Montanans debate 6-mill levy, support for universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Annie Waldum is new to political campaigning, but the 20-year-old student has already figured out her best pitch to grab the attention of Montana State University students walking by to dinner. "My go-to is, 'Do you want to help support the 6-mill levy and keep tuition from going up 18 percent?'" Waldum said.

# data[].attributes.body
Hunter B

# data[].attributes.body
(Courtney)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supporters campaigning to keep the 6-mill property tax levy that supports the Montana University System have raised more than $1.4 million, while opponents have raised less than $5,000.

Campaign finance reports filed with the state commissioner of political practices show that fundraising has been heavily lopsided.

Voters' opinion appears similarly lopsided in the latest Montana Television Network-Montana State University poll.

Some 53.9 percent said they plan to vote yes on Initiative 128, while 22 percent said they'd vote no, out of the 2,057 voters who answered the mail survey. Nearly 23 percent were undecided. The margin of error is 2.1 percent.

David Parker, MSU associate professor of political science and the poll's author, said Thursday he suspects the no vote will grow by Election Day. Some voters may have felt leery of revealing their opinions to pollsters, he said, "because of general skepticism of higher education." But the yes vote may grow, too, as undecideds make up their minds.

"It looks like it's going to pass," Parker said. "It basically hasn't moved" from the last vote a decade ago.

"There is no organized opposition," Parker said, and "$5,000 is nothing."

Every 10 years, Montana voters decide whether to keep the 6-mill levy, which is expected to raise roughly $20 million a year for the University System.

Montanans for the 6 Mill contends the levy keeps tuition affordable for students and helps the universities contribute to Montana's economy in agriculture, business and technology.

Montanans Against Higher Taxes contends the universities waste money on high-priced administrators and fancy sporting facilities. The group argues rejecting the levy would force universities to trim spending and give taxpayers a tax cut amounting to $200 million over 10 years.

Public support for the levy has slipped in recent decades. In 1988, it passed by 64 percent. In 2008, the yes vote fell to 56.7 percent.

This year's levy supporters have run a conventional campaign, holding fundraising events, hiring consultants, spending a lot on TV ads, doing polling, printing flyers and yard signs, and hiring college students to get out the word to campus voters.

Montanans for the 6 Mill raised major donations from the state's most powerful business and labor groups - groups often on opposite sides of other issues - and big names on campus.

Opponents have raised less than $5,000 and spent almost all their money on Facebook ads. The ads criticize the universities for their spending, for barring conservative speakers and offering tuition discounts to out-of-state students.

Parker said he thinks levy support has been shrinking "because people's views have become more polarized," both nationally and in Montana.

Montana leans Republican, he said, and Republican voters in the poll were split, 39.2 percent in favor, 30.4 percent against and 27.9 percent undecided. Among Democrats, 77.6 percent said they would vote yes. Among independents, 61.5 percent were in favor.

Montana also has fewer college-educated residents than the national average, Parker said, and voters without a college degree may not understand its value or feel more skeptical of universities.

"I'm hoping people will become more trusting," Parker said. "I hope through things like this poll, we will build trust in what we do as a land-grant institution. Sometimes people don't understand what a university does beyond granting degrees," like supporting the state's industry, agriculture and technology.

The biggest donor to the yes campaign is the Montana Federation of Public Employees union (formerly MEA-MFT), which has given more than $1.1 million in cash over the past year plus thousands of dollars worth of in-kind help.

Other major donors to the yes campaign include Washington Corp., $40,000; the Montana Hospital Association, $25,000; Montana Law PAC, $20,000; Glacier Bank Corp., $15,000; BNSF Railway, $10,000; Blue Cross/Blue Shield, $10,000; D.A. Davidson, $10,000; Payne West $10,000; Allegiance Benefit Plan, $10,000; and SCL Health Systems, $10,000. Campuses' fundraising foundations each gave up to $5,000, as did the University of Montana Faculty Association.

MSU President Waded Cruzado has given $2,000 and UM President Seth Bodnar gave $1,250, while their boss Clayton Christian, commissioner of higher education, gave $2,500.

Individual donors include 6 Mill committee treasurer Bob Brown; MSU vice presidents Terry Leist, Charles Boyer, Chris Kearns, Renee Reijo Pera and Tracy Ellig; MSU-Billings Chancellor Dan Edelman, MSU-Northern Chancellor Greg Kegel and MSU-Great Falls CEO Susan Wolff.

Northwestern Energy President Robert Row and MEA President Eric Feaver each gave $1,000. Current and past Board of Regents members also gave.

Donors who gave hundreds of dollars to the no campaign include Montanans Against Higher Taxes treasurer Tim Adams of Bozeman; Esther Fishbaugh, CEO of Canyon Enterprises of Bozeman; retiree Glen Brecht of Bozeman; Standard Consulting of Helena; retiree Geoff Goble of McLeod; and Billings auto dealer Stephen Zabawa.

Gail Schontzler can be reached at gails@dailychronicle.com or 406-582-2633. Follow her on Twitter @gailnews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Campaign donations lopsided for 6-mill university levy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supporters campaigning to keep the 6-mill property tax levy that supports the Montana University System have raised more than $1.4 million, while opponents have raised less than $5,000. Campaign finance reports filed with the state commissioner of political practices show that fundraising has been heavily lopsided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Montana LR-128, the Property Tax for State University System Measure, is on the ballot in Montana as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.

A "yes" vote supports renewing a six-mill tax on real estate and personal property to provide funding for the Montana University System (MUS) from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2028.

A "no" vote opposes renewing a six-mill tax on real estate and personal property to provide funding for MUS.

LR-128 was designed to levy a 6 mill tax on the taxable value of all real estate and personal property subject to taxation in the state of Montana. Under the measure, the revenue would go to the Montana university system to be used "for the continued support, maintenance, and improvement of the Montana University System." The funds raised from the levy would be deposited in the state special revenue fund. A six-mill tax rate is equivalent to $6 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value. If approved by voters, the act would be effective January 1, 2019, and would terminate on December 31, 2028. Approval of the ballot measure was expected to provide an estimated $20.9 million in fiscal year 2020 and $21.5 million in fiscal year 2021 for MUS. Should voters reject the measure, the tax would terminate and cease as a source of revenue for MUS. For fiscal year 2017, MUS's total operating budget was estimated to be $1.5 billion. About $508.8 million of that was expected to be spent on educational units, with $19 million derived from the six-mill tax.

The six-mill tax for higher education was first levied after a public vote in 1948 and was reauthorized at the ballot box every 10 years, including in 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008. The highest margin of approval for the tax was 67.24 percent in 1978, and the lowest margin of approval was 51.51 percent in 1958. The average approval rate of the seven times the tax was voted on was 60.10 percent.

Sen. Mary Moe (D-12) introduced the measure into the state legislature as Senate Bill 85 on January 4, 2017. On January 24, 2017, the Senate approved the referral, with 32 voting in favor and 17 against. The House of Representatives passed the measure, 86 to 13, on February 22, 2017. The measure was enrolled on March 8, 2017.

How current is this campaign finance information?

Two committees- Business for Higher Education and Montanans for the 6Mill-are registered to support this measure, and one committee- Montanans Against Higher Taxes -was registered to oppose it. The support committees had raised a total of $1.14 million and spent $1.05 million. The opposition committee raised $3,749.52 in contributions and had spent $2,778.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:

The full text of the measure is as follows:

Readability score

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.

Montanans for Higher Education and Montanans for the Six Mill (also styled Montanans for the 6Mill) are leading the campaign in support of this measure.

Supporters

, said, "We want to be sure people know it is not a tax increase. It's the same level of support our great-grandparents passed on to our grandparents, going back to 1948."

Montanans for the Six Mill featured the following arguments on its website:

Montanans for the Six Mill give the following six reasons for supporting the levy:

Opposition

Montanans Against Higher Taxes is leading the campaign in opposition to this measure.

Rep. Tom Burnett (R-Bozeman) said, "Maybe taxpayers are doing enough. No one is arguing higher education is not valuable. The question is, at what level does it need to be funded?"

Montanans Against Higher Taxes featured the following argument on its website:

"

We believe that Higher Education spending has become out-of-control as everyday Montanans struggle financially with rising costs of living and low wages. When Montana ranks 47th in wages nationally they should not have to subsidize a university system of flat in-state enrollment, large amounts of debt and ever-increasing spending. University enrollment of in-state students has been flat or falling across the 14 campuses in the state, while out-of-state enrollment climbs dramatically to make up for increased spending. College students at some campuses enjoy perks like pool parties, DJs, raves, climbing walls, racquetball courts etc. and can even ski for college credit. Less than half of every dollar contributed by state taxpayers actually goes toward education, with the rest covering salaries, benefits, activities etc. Vote NO on LR-128 in Nov. 2018 to give yourself and your neighbors a $200 million tax cut and make the Montana University System live within its means.

"

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which covered through September 26, 2018. The deadline for the next scheduled reports was October 22, 2018.

Two committees-Business for Higher Education and Montanans for the 6Mill-are registered to support this measure, and one committee-Montanans Against Higher Taxes-is registered to oppose it. The support committees had raised a total of $1.14 million in contributions and had spent $1.05 million. The opposition committee had raised $3,750 in contributions and had spent $3,310.

The largest donor to the support campaign was the MEA-MFT, which provided $718,338 in contributions. MEA-MFT is a labor union that represents "state, county, & municipal employees; public K-12 school teachers and support staff; higher education faculty; health care employees; Head Start teachers and staff; retired members; and student members (college students who plan to become teachers)."

The largest donor to the opposition campaign was Timothy Adams, who provided $677.06 in contributions-$500 in cash and the rest in in-kind services.

Following are summaries of the contributions and expenditures for the support committees according to the most recent reports available:

The five largest donors to the support campaign according to the most recent reports are below:

Opposition

Following are summaries of the contributions and expenditures for the opposition committee according to the most recent reports available:

The largest donors to the opposition campaign according to the most recent reports available are below:

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Below are poll results for the measure:

Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Montana University System

The Montana University System (MUS) was established in 1994. A seven-member Board of Regents governs the system. As of 2017, MUS was comprised of sixteen public institutions of higher education, including two state university systems and three community colleges. The following institutions were members of MUS:

Montana State University (Bozeman, Gallatin College, Billings, City College at Billings, Northern, Great Falls College)

University of Montana (Missoula, Missoula College, Bitterroot College, Montana Tech, Highlands College, Western, Helena College)

Dawson Community College

Flathead Valley Community College

Miles Community College

Following is a chart of MUS tuition and fees for one academic year (two full-time 15-credits semesters) for in-state students. For 2017-2018, the average cost of full-time tuition for a 4-year undergraduate degree was $6,412 per year, or about $25,651 for four years.

The average cost of tuition per academic year in nearby states was around $7,453, or about $29,812 for four years.

Following is a chart of the Montana University System's operating budget for fiscal year 2018:

In 1920, Montanans approved Initiative 18, which enacted a 1.5-mill tax for 10 years to provide funding for the state university system. The legislature referred Referendum 34 to the ballot in 1930. Voters approved the measure, which levied a three-mill tax for 10 years to provide funding for the University of Montana, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Agricultural Extension Service. The legislature referred a measure, titled Referendum 42, in 1940. The measure levied a 3.5-mill tax to provide funds for the university system.

The six-mill tax for higher education was first levied after a public vote in 1948 and was reauthorized at the ballot box every 10 years, including in 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008. The highest margin of approval for the tax was 67.24 percent in 1978, and the lowest margin of approval was 51.51 percent in 1958. The average approval rate of the seven times the tax was voted on was 60.10 percent.

Referred statutes on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the state legislature referred eight state statutes to the ballot. Voters approved seven and rejected one of the referred statutes. The rejected measure would have shortened the deadline for late voter registration. The average number of referred statutes appearing on the ballot during an even-numbered election year was between zero and one. No referred statutes appeared on the ballot in 2016. However, one appeared on the ballot in 2014. The approval rate for referred statutes at the ballot box was 87.50 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 12.50 percent.

Path to the ballot

See also: Legislatively-referred state statutes in Montana

In Montana, a simple majority is required in both chambers of the legislature to place a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot.

Sen. Mary Moe (D-12) introduced the measure into the state legislature as Senate Bill 85 on January 4, 2017. The Senate Taxation Committee approved the measure in a nine to one vote on January 19, 2017. On January 24, 2017, the Senate approved the referral, with 32 voting in favor and 17 against. One senator was excused from the vote. The House Taxation Committee approved the measure on February 10, 2017. The House of Representatives passed the measure, 86 to 13, with one member absent, on February 22, 2017. The measure was enrolled on March 8, 2017.

Section 5 of Article III of the Montana Constitution, along with Montana Code 5-4-301, provides that the governor cannot veto legislatively referred state statutes or stop them from appearing on the ballot.

January 24, 2017[21]

Montana SB 85 Senate Vote

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes

32

65.31%

No

17

34.69%

Partisan breakdown of Senate votes

February 22, 2017[21]

Montana SB 85 House Vote

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes

86

86.87%

No

13

13.13%

Partisan breakdown of House votes

State profile

This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on Montana, click here.

Montana prides itself as "The Last Best Place," with 77 percent of residents believing that their state is either the best or one of the best possible in which to live, tying it with Alaska for the highest percentage in the nation. Montana's population grew by 13 percent in the 1990s and another 10 percent between 2000 and 2010; in the half-decade since 2010, it has increased by another 5.4 percent. But Montana is the fourth-largest state in area and it ranks third from the bottom in population density. So while the state's natural beauty and open spaces have drawn a steady stream of newcomers, the state still isn't close to filling up. In recent years, many have bought up ranchlands and condominiums, but Montana is still a land of great empty vistas, with mountains in the west and vast plateaus and plains in the east.

In April 1805, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and their pirogues wended up the Missouri River just past the Yellowstone River into what now is Montana. To celebrate ...( read more)

Demographic data for Montana

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Montana

Montana voted Republican in all five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, three are located in Montana, accounting for 1.46 percent of the total pivot counties.

More Montana coverage on Ballotpedia

External links

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Montana 2018 property tax university. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Montana LR-128, Property Tax for State University System Measure (2018) - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Montana LR-128, the Property Tax for State University System Measure, is on the ballot in Montana as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018. A "yes" vote supports renewing a six-mill tax on real estate and personal property to provide funding for the Montana University System (MUS) from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2028.

# data[].attributes.headline
Argument that money goes to educators salaries does not improve education

# data[].attributes.subject
Argument that money goes to educators salaries does not improve education

# data[].attributes.body
"College students at some campuses enjoy perks like pool parties, DJs, raves, climbing walls, racquetball courts etc. and can even ski for college credit. Less than half of every dollar contributed by state taxpayers actually goes toward education, with the rest covering salaries, benefits, activities etc."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Montanans Against Higher Taxes is a registered political ballot issue committee created to oppose the $200+ million property tax increase on the Nov 2018 ballot (LR 128). We believe that Higher Education spending has become out-of-control as everyday Montanans struggle financially with rising costs of living and low wages.

# data[].attributes.body
Compared to other MT initiatives, there seems to be a limited amount of commercials and ads for I-128. I am not sure if I am just not looking in the right places, but it was much easier to find them for the other ones. It also seemed like many of the articles in newspapers discussed people in favor of the initiative. Since there is a limited amount of commercials and visual ads, I think that it would be smart to have students identify a particular element in both the ones in favor and in opposition... then, create a project that compares the two sides.