By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The Montana Secretary of State Office approved the ballot a measure that would mandate the legislature be equally represented by men and women. Presently, women hold 41 of the 150 seats in the state legislature. There are several more processes to surmount before the ballot measure becomes listed on the general election ballot. A signature drive follows and must obtain valid signatures of ten percent of the total voters in Montana and ten percent in each of the forty legislative districts. The signature gathering with the requisite signatures must be collected by June 20th if to be placed upon the ballot.
While certainly laudable in an effort to obtain greater participation of women in the political process, which is still not at parity, the likelihood of this measure, if it becomes law, surviving a constitutional challenge is weak.
On the surface there might be districts having a mandatory gender for a position and voter or other candidates are discriminated against solely based on sex and not qualifications generally requisite with any candidate. It surely can be divisive
Some might argue having a greater percentage of women in any parliament or legislature tends to bring in a better perspective and bring about more balance. When there was the effort in years past to organize and enable a parliament in war torn Afghanistan, many NGOs, local women’s groups, and international stakeholders mandated that women be included. It certainly was a laudable goal, considering the terrible suffrage in that country and subjugation of women there. Perhaps, maybe it might lead to less testosterone fueled extremes and more a voice of reason.
But does such a model have a place in Montana or other states, or is this just a form of reverse suffrage?
What do you think?
Source: Fox News
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
If they start doing this for the legislature, are they going to mandate gender equality for teachers in the school system? What about gender equality for servers in restaurants? Where does the madness stop?
This is the only way women will ever get the numbers even.
This is actually not anywhere close to getting on the ballot yet. It has only been approved for signature gathering. From the Montana Secretary of State website:
Ballot Issue #8 CI-114 (Status current as of 3/15/2014)
Subject: Require that the legislature be composed of fifty percent men and fifty percent women.
Sponsor: John Marshall
Contact Person: John Marshall
Type: Constitutional initiative
Received by SOS: November 5, 2013
Status: Petition has been approved for signature gathering as of March 4, 2014.
Paul Schulte:
“Reasonable and prudent” was the speed limit when I got my Montana drivers license at the age of 15 in 1966, and had been on all the highway signs since I became able to read them, but perhaps you are older than I. After the feds removed the coercive condition for receipt of federal highway funds that 55 be the speed limit, Montana reverted to reasonable and prudent for a while. Unfortunately it became a “speed tourist” destination, and the legislature decided to put a daytime speed limit in place in order to put an end to that.
Mark R Cole:
I left Montana to join the Navy in 1975 and never moved back, so I guess my memory is starting to fail me. 🙁 I remember regularly making the 545 mile drive to and from college in Missoula in less than 7 hours, even thought I had to slow down a little going over Rogers Pass. I felt pretty indestructible in those days; now I just feel lucky . . . Fortunately, I had already graduated by the time the double nickel went into effect. I do remember, though, how ticked off everyone was at the idea of a daytime speed limit being shoved down our throats — hence the non-traffic nature of the offense.
Porkchop – I got my drivers license in 1956 and was driving a ’58 Pontiac with a ’59 Bonneville w/2 3-barreled carbs and Positract rear end. It idled at 35 mph. I AM older than you. 🙂 I was there at the beginning, before they wimped out. 🙂
Actually that fine was only $5 and, during my college days, spent many occasions in the front seat of a MHP cruiser conversing with a lonely patrolman while he completed the waste-of-energy citation in longhand. Now (since late 90’s) the ticket for 10 or less over is only $20 with same repercussions mentioned above. I recently received a regular citation for 87 mph (17 over secondary road daytime limit) and paid only $40?? Montana–truly the last best place!
This is godawfully stupid. Is this an actual proposal or are is this clickbait?
Paul Schulte —
You are misinformed. Actually, there was a daytime speed limit: “reasonable and prudent under the circumstances”. Generally, it was determined after the fact. Basically, if you didn’t hit anything, you were okay, although there were times when the Highway Patrol would cite drivers for failure to take due care or reckless driving. Then along came Nixon — there actually wasn’t a speed limit even then; there was a civil offense, “wasting natural resources in short supply”. It wasn’t a traffic offense; exceeding 55 was a per se violation, though. There was a $10 fine payable on the spot.
The night-time speed limit (other than on interstate highways) was always 55, not 65.
Porkchop – I stand corrected on the 55, but I do not remember reasonable or prudent as the Montana Highway Patrol was clocking my Pontiac at over 130 mph. 🙂 I think the reasonable and prudent came later. You are right that if you went 56 at night you were going to get a ticket, but I do not remember paying on the spot. Think originally you went to the local county seat. Still, it has been over 50 years so my synapses don’t always fire the way they should. 🙂
To resolve the logistical nightmare surrounding a 50/50 gender split in the state house, why not require two representatives, one of each gender for each legislative “seat”?
My favorite story about the Montana legislature was when they discovered that only the legislature could set the speed limits on the highways (pre-interstate). They easily agreed on a night limit of 65, but could not agree on a day time limit. And then the session ended with no daytime speed limit on Montana highways. It was a great time to own a muscle car. 🙂
People may make many jokes about Montana etc… But it’s been one of the most gender parity states since it’s admission into the US…. The elected the first woman to congress in 1916….. Though she couldn’t vote for herself…. She was none the less elected…..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin
Bad idea. Gender is a spectrum, for one. Another: how do you get the quota of women filled without having to resort to mandated candidacies?
Interesting case Darren. I would like to request a new bill that mandates at least a 20% representation of Irish/German/Swedish legislators in order to more fully represent me!!
Montanans, at least when I grew up, tended to be pretty unconcerned with others private lives. There weren’t many, if any, _publicly_ gender-bent individuals, and if people were cross-dressing at home, well, no one would have known or cared.
My home state has always been at the forefront of women’s participation in politics. The first woman elected to Congress (in 1916) was from Montana. — Jeanette Rankin, a pacifist Republican. They voted her out in 1918 for voting against the Declaration of War against the Central Powers in World War I. They elected her again in 1940, just in time to vote against the Declaration of War against Japan after Pearl Harbor — and voted her out in 1942.
That being said, even if constitutional, it would be awfully difficult to administer — they would have to mandate that half the districts be set aside for women and bar women from running in the other half. (Or would this parity work only one way, i.e., would a majority of men in the legislature be barred, but a majority of women okay?) Who would decide which districts had to represented by women and which must not be represented by women? What if no women want to run in a particular district? (Seriously, the pool is not very deep in some rural districts — people have farms and businesses to run; as long as the roads are paved (and plowed in winter), the noxious week control board is doing its job, the Cooperative Extension Service Agent position is filled, and other essential services are maintained, many — perhaps most people won’t care.)
What if 20% of the Montana population was American Indian of various tribes? Would they get 20% of the seats? Remember the movie Blazing Saddles? Someone is going to want to keep out the Irish.
What do you do if someone is bent? By that I mean they are cross gendered. Say its a male with a male partner but one takes on a female role by dressing in gal clothes and wearing makeup etc. Say they are both candidates for the Legislature but the Legislature is split 50/50 right now. Does one get kicked off the ticket for being bent?
Mandating that a particular percentage of those in the legislature are of any particular sex would set a dangerous precedent, for demanding at some future date that half be of some other identification. Let women who want to be heard and have something to say, run for office, on what she stands for. I think we will see more women continue to hold office every year because women do have a unique voice to add and are as perfectly capable of legislating as any man.
When it comes to politics, the reason the inmates are running the asylum, is because of special-interest money. There isn’t a single female politician in Washington, the same as for males, that isn’t bought and sold by corporate, union, and special-interest money. Unless Montana can do the impossible and find women immune from whoring with deep-pocket lobbyists, it won’t make a bit of difference than putting all convicts on the ballot.
What’s next, 20 percent Catholics, 10 percent gays, 15 percent Hispanic, Native American, etc? Where does it end?
How about just manndating that Montana put honest people on the ballot?
Not a bad idea for many considerations, including equal pay for equal work, and all that type of jazz.
The reality is that even if it were not found unconstitutional, a significant number of women would vote against it, just as a significant number of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish women support the misogynistic aspects of their respective religions. Still, putting the idea forward, might raise consciousness of the need for greater gender equality in representation.