Trego's Mountain Ear

CI-126 proposes a constitutional amendment that would have four candidates advancing from the primary to the general election – regardless of party lines.   Somehow, the pols who wrote the pros and cons for this initiative all seemed to miss a single takeaway from our election in 2022 – then, out of 100 state representative districts, 31 representatives were elected without opposition in the general election.  Seven of the 25 candidates for state senate were elected without opposition in the general election.  Let’s face it – the bastards voted out section 7 in 2022 – so passing CI-126 is about as likely to get four candidates in the Fall elections as a pig is to fly.  Whether it’s a good idea or not, we’re still going to have about a third of our politicians elected without competition. 

CI-127 proposes that politicians have to have a majority of the votes to be elected.  Again, it sounds like a nice idea – but nearly a third of our state senators and representatives were elected without opposition, and then the bastards went on to repeal section 7 – the only thing that could have given the voters the power to get opposition.

Simply enough, if a third of the candidates are elected without opposition, that third will have a majority of the votes.  The idea might sound nice to folks who don’t understand how many non-competitive elections seat state representatives and senators – but requiring a majority of ballots cast won’t do jack to correct that problem.

CI-128 offers an opportunity to include the right to abortion in the state constitution.  In general, the arguments make sense -but there’s a phrase that concerns me: “in the good judgement of a treating health care professional”.  Sounds good, but years ago – in South Dakota, not Montana, I had a sketchy guy in a clinic explain to me that he was a “health care professional.”  He turned kind of a blotchy red when I asked “What’s the degree listed on your diploma?” then choked out “Physical Education.”  I suggested that, just perhaps, I might be better served by a Registered Nurse or a physician than by a PE major.

So I’d like to see that one specify things a little more closely in defining a “health care professional.”  In my world, chiropractors qualify as “health care professionals.”  A dentist is obviously a “health care professional.”

I’m pushing 75 really hard – I recall a bartender in Bozeman who was known as “Doc.”  He was the professional abortion provider in those prehistoric years before Roe v Wade.  His work, and the work of others like him, was at least part of the reason why abortion became legal – medical procedures should be performed by specific medical professionals.  And Doc’s college career had included basketball, but not med school or nursing training.

I recognize that the issue is important – but I had a PE major identify himself to me as a “health care professional.”  I’d prefer a constitutional amendment that was a little more limiting.