Montana justices reject attempt to block initiative that forbids Medicaid expansion

2014-04-02T21:30:00Z 2014-06-13T19:31:46Z Montana justices reject attempt to block initiative that forbids Medicaid expansionBy CHARLES S. JOHNSON Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com

HELENA – The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an attempt to block officials from approving petitions for an initiative prohibiting the state from using funds or staff to administer the Affordable Care Act and forbiding the state from expanding Medicaid.

The court, in a 5-0 ruling, rejected an attempt by Travis Hoffman of Missoula, Melissa Smylie of Great Falls and Kim Abbott of Helena to disqualify Initiative 171 and prevent it from being circulated for signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

Hoffmann is on Medicaid, while Smylie is on Medicaid and her child is on the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Abbott is leader of the Healthy Montana initiative.

Medicaid is the state-federal program that pays the medical bills for the poor.

Those challenging I-171 had contended it was “legally insufficient” and unconstitutional for a number of reasons. In a filing last month, they asked that the court stop I-171 from being distributed for signatures.

The court ruled otherwise.

“We conclude that none of these constitutional claims meets the definition of a legal deficiency within the scope of the attorney general’s authority on review of a proposed ballot measure,” Justice Beth Baker wrote for the court.

She said the attorney general’s ballot statements meet the requirements of state law.

“Given the complexity of the ACA and the impact of its non-enforcement in Montana, the attorney general’s statement captures its purpose, implication and fiscal impacts in summary fashion and is sufficient to inform the voters of the implication of a vote for or against the measure,” Baker wrote.

In response, Matthew Monforton, the Bozeman attorney who wrote and submitted I-171, said, “I am pleased that we will be able to move forward with our efforts to save Montana taxpayers from having to pay for the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare in Montana.”

Abbott, leader of the group behind I-170, said, “We’re committed to challenging I-171 in every avenue we have. It’s a dangerous policy because it would eliminate our CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) policy and our Medicaid plan, costing thousands of Montanans the health care they depend on.”

***

In other litigation, Monforton filed a lawsuit challenging what he called the “false fiscal statement” in I-170, the pro-Medicaid expansion measure. Monforton said he sent the legal papers to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, but as of late Wednesday they had not yet showed up on the court’s electronic register.

He represented a group at Montana State University known as If You Like Your MSU Funding, You Can Keep It; Kathy Hollenback, an MSU employee and Bozeman Democrat running for the Legislature; Ed Johnson, an MSU student running for the Legislature as a Republican; and Kyndall Miller, an MSU student.

This lawsuit contends that the fiscal statement for I-170, prepared by Gov. Steve Bullock’s budget office, falsely says that the initiative would save Montana money in fiscal 2017.

Monforton said the office reached this conclusion by including anticipated increases in the Children’s Health Insurance Program to Montana from the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program.

However, he said Montana stands to receive these payments of more than $100 million regardless of whether I-170 passes. As a result, properly excluding this $100 million in CHIP money from the fiscal statement shows that I-170 would cost, rather than save. Montana money, Monforton said.

“The Bullock administration needs to come clean with how much the Obamacare Medicaid expansion will really cost Montana, and that is what our lawsuit against I-170 is designed to do,” Monforton said.

It asked the Supreme Court to order Attorney General Tim Fox to revise the fiscal statement for I-170 and to issue an order voiding all I-170 petition forms containing the defective fiscal statements.

In response, Abbott said the governor’s budget office has already approved the fiscal impact statement for I-170.

“We have a fiscal impact statement,” Abbot said. “We went through the statutory process. We have an approved petition and we are out gathering signatures. We are excited to be out talking to voters about getting 70,000 Montanans the health care they need.”

To qualify for the ballot, either I-170 or I-171 requires signatures at least 24,175 registered voters, including at least 5 percent of the voters in 34 of the 100 state House districts.

Chuck Johnson is chief of the Lee Newspapers State Bureau in Helena. He can be reached by email at chuck.johnson@lee.net or by phone at (406) 447-4066 or (800) 525-4920.

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. glacierkaren
    Report Abuse
    glacierkaren - April 03, 2014 10:24 am
    From what the GOP/TP has essentially admitted in other states, such as Missouri, the thinking is if they take away benefits for children, the poor, the elderly and so on, then they will have to go elsewhere, so the state won't have to pay for them. I suppose that's a money saving plan, alright, but "Montana for the Wealthy" doesn't sound like a very good state motto.
  2. Greg Strandberg
    Report Abuse
    Greg Strandberg - April 03, 2014 1:09 am
    Alright, let's not fund ACA. What would you propose the alternative be?

    Republicans, I'm waiting.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Search our events calendar