MONTANA PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Run'dU
~'l (j...",~rnm~nl
Research.
Urll''il'rslly
of Monlana. Missoul.l 59801
REPORT
Numbe, 13--0ecembe' 1972
The Montana Voter and the 1972
Constitutional Election
Thomas Payne, Professor of Political Science,
and Elizabeth Eastman, Research Associate,
University of Montana, Missoula
Why did Montanans vote as they did on the question of
the proposed eonSiitution at the June 6. 1972 special
t1tttion? What effecl, if any. did age, sex, party preference,
or farm, non-farm status have upon the manner in which
they cast thdr ballots? In search of answers to these and
other qutstions, the Bureau of Government Research
undertook an election da y voter survey, the rtsults of which
art analyzed in this Report.
The design of Ihis survey. methods of data collection, and
problems aosing from interpretation of the data arc
explained In the concluding section of this article. Here, it
wlllsuffi~ to observe that nearly 1,000 voters, selected by
u.mpbng procedures, were inten:iewed as they left their
polling places.' Data obtained from these interviews ....~re
tabulated, processed and analyzed in an effort to provide
ans....en to the qucstions raised in the preceding paragraph.
The findinp arc presented not as immutable truth but as
repruentlng a substantial step beyond the usualspeculati\-'e,
unsubstantiated comment which characterius so much
wrlt,ng that passes for election analysis.
To what elttent did party affiliation, as measured by
choice of pnmary at the Juneelection,! enter into the pallern
of voting on the proposed constitution? Table I indicates
that while both Democrats and Republicans favored the new
constitution, Democrats registered a 10 percent greater degree of support. This survey was conducted mainly in urban
counties where the proposed constitution received an affirmative vote, so that data concerning partisanship arc not
available for the less populous, rural counties where the vote
was against the proposed constitution. I Many of the rural
counties which voted against the proposed constitution have
had strongly Republican voting pauerns in the past. Yet
'the
",,.h
\.0 Ick."O"'I~~ \M Mlpl~1 Il>.. lal\tt of 1M
'«"",w:d "'o<kc~ In tM countlCl ""he'c.he l .......,y >Q!I
conduacd RlCluord CIuo"'po..... W,ll..", f'urdcll. JI""'" Goell. Aorcna:
HMpn. OotOlhy HI.per. J 0 Lynch. 00" NlCbon, PoUy P'cluo~ Oak
1 ISh II\d Dock. Vln Dc. Pool Joe Payne prop''''med the cOftlp~ter Ind
I~ll>on
~1C .. ""tor.... ho
prClCCMol:d \M d'ia
"floc o;oftI.l.,l~tlO",,1 rdcrcnd~", Ind lhe pnmlry clectlon ...cre Mid
c..ncwrcntly
'Sou [U,. W,Id,Ofl, ·Moma...·11972Co... UI~..onal E!«t,on,/'oJ)I" AI/_. R~f'U" ,,"0 11. Uune, 19721
Man,,,,..,
urban Silver Bow, strongly Democratic in the past, gave the
proposed constitution an affirmative vote of only 47 percent.
The evidence presented in the table shows, for eltample.
that those who voted for the proposed constitution
(proponents) also were strong supporters of the unicameral
legislature. while those opposing the proposed constitution
(opponents) decisively rejected a unicameral legislature. The
issuc of allowing the legislature to authorize gambling did
not produce so sharp a contrast in the votes of proponents
and opponents of the proposed constitution, although
proponents gave approltimately nine percent greater
support to legalized gambling. While constitutional
proponents supported retention of the death penally by a
narrow margin, opponents strongly favored its retention, the
spread here being more than 18 percentage points.
TA.BI.I:: I
VOlillC PUI"'M 01 R~pondcnl G.OOI~ on lh. Pr.OW1I Con.lilw.ion
VOUn& Group
Dcmoc:.IU
Pccecnl
For
Pc,"nl
Agallll'
'"
28.1
38,S
Repubhun.
61.S
Males
"0
14.6
Femal.s
A&. 18·2<,1
A~c
JoO·SIl
Age 60 J'lus
NOli-Farm
Farm
68.S
64.6
61.S
.,.
44.1
31.S
33.4
2S.4
3M
38.S
"'.2
SS.1l
From the data in Table I it seems clear that su made little
dirference in voting behavior. Male suppon was an
insignificant two percentage points greater than female
suppon. On the other hand, age had a more noticeable
impact on the vote. In general the younger the voter, the
greater the likelihood that he would support the proposed
constitution. The strongest suppon was registered by the 1829 age group and the weak.est support was sholl'on by the 6().
and-over group. The farm vote llI'ent heaVIly apIRst lhe
proposed constitution. Here there was a significant spread
of 2S pe.rccntage pOInts, Probably the fact that the sample
"as obtained largely from urban counties understates the
oppoSitIOn \'ote by the fann component of the population.
l"'M design of the ballot for the special constitutional
e1«tlon afforded voters the opportunity to express their
nev. on three side issues. Voter response is summarized in
Table 2. For the analysis in this table, response on the side
ISSUes was associated with the respondenfs declared position
for or against ratification of the main document.
The differentts shown here suggest Interestmaqut1\
further exploration. Because of the areas from w~o~ fOr
data were obtained. the sharpness of the rura.l~ur~~ tilt
is blurred.
!plll
The survey sought also to determine ...·h), Mont
voted for or against the proposed COnStitUtion. Voter: nan
asked by interviewers to complete a form In Yt hleh the,"~
.
.
h .
"-en:
glv~n an oppo':Untty to ~ta!e t elf reason or reaSOns ror
voting as they dId. The ",!aJont~ of those Who partlClpat«l.n
the survey responded With a Single reaSOn althOUgh so
respondents. failed
to complete
this pan ofthe questlOnn,""
.
L.
Irt
an d a lew indicated more tnan one reason for their '.Olt,
Among those who voted affirmaltvely on Ihe prOJlOStd
constitution, a total of 531 separate respon~s was rece;'.ed
Fitting these responses into precise categori~s was;
necessary but difficult task in organizing th~ data. No less
than 33 distinct reasons for supporting the proposed
constitution were advanced. These, in turn, were grouped
somewhat arbitrarily into the seven broad categories which
are shown in Table 4. The miscellaneouscategoryindudesa
diversity of responses that could not be neatly categorized
under any more appropriate heading.
~
TABLE 2
How "ropon~nIS Ind Oppon~nb or J"ropOli~d Conslilulion
\'otN on Sid~ IMUfl;
Uniumtrll
I'roponents
Opponcnu
P~re~nt
P~rc~nl
Fo'
Again~t
L~Clsllllurf
62.0
36,4
~el1ilcd
Glmbline
72.4
I'roponcnts
Opponents
38.0
63.6
63.7
27.6
36,3
Rtttntion of Duth Ptnllty
Proponents
Opponcnts
53.0
71.3
TABLE"
47.0
".7
Support patterns for the proposed constitution ~nd for t~e
side issues varied slightly with geography, as disclosed In
Table 3,
RfI~on!i
Ginn by VOItn for Supportinill'ropOlofd Comlitutioll
Conrlden« In worl:. of dtlcptts
FIc",l>lllt~ and UK of amc:ndmcnt
Grealtr opportUntly for chOice and
p3rtKlp:lllon ;n go\crnrntnt
Strcngthen!i fight!! and lcg.slatutt
~hSftnaJ\fOUs pronsions appro"ed
Appro\-al of lax prO"lilons
General appro\-al
51
"
,"".
I'
llS
TABLE 3
Pefcenl
For
Arell'
Prupo~fd
I'llcllie )lopc
Northern cropland
Southern ral1l1cland
I'ercenl
AgalR,l
COl1slltullun
72.2
2iUl
66,1
nil
64 5
35.5
Unlumtrll Lrel,hllurt
Pacllic .Iope
Northern cropland
Sout~rn ran~land
572
411.1
>4.
Leeiliud Glmbline
75,S
Plelr..: $to~
IIoorthtrn eropbnd
625
SQulbcrn ranllel:lnd
Ihttnllon of DUlh I'tnlll)
n.
41.8
""
46.0
,4>
'64
J7.5
Well over half of those who responded with reasons ro~
supporting the proposed constitution expressed ge~era
approval of the document without voicing approval 0 an,Y
.
S··fi
specific feature or seCllon,
Igot lcant Iy. Ihe reason mosl
.. I
mentioned for support other than that of general apprO\3 .
.
.d
b the delegaleS
was a vOle of confidence for the work one Y
b ht
to the convention. Supporters were attracted Yo;ed
Oexibilit, and ease of amendment of the prop 1"<
. WhIC"
' ...It 01"""ned up . IIIn
constitution and by the way In
. an d partlclpa
.
I I0" b,'clltzC'nsmed
possibility of greater choIce
sum those who voted for the proposed constllultO~~ tOO
0 0 the whole to regard it with confidence but ",It ou
much feding for s~cific rdorms or ,Improu' ffi('nts . n b\
Those who opposed the proposed consulU~::b 'the)
contrast often objected to speCific prO\'ISIOns ~ a5 ma n\
regarded as unacceptable. While onl) abeul ha pont nn
responses were received fromopponeotsas from pro\('n fOf"
(244 all told), there ",ere 57 distlOct reaw n: :",) ('.,gIl1
opposing the propo!>ed constitutIon rable 5 h ~ lhe
broad classes of reasons gnen b) \oter~ ",ho opPO
proposed constttullon
TABU: S
Numbcr of
Rcuon
RCiPOI\KS
Ol)hl.c of la, pro\ l)'OfU
los> of f"«dum or nll1b
Too mlK'l1 po..·cr to lo\~rnmcnt
Prottdu..e of adoption or r:lItlrw:allon
I'~nl COn)lllllllOn adcquatc. or could
be: amended
lad. of I.no.. kdac of proposed conslilUllon
Gennal oppos'''on
t-hloCdbncous ob,n:uons to a v;mcty of
~Irw: prO\'l510ns
71
]I
29
"
"18
•
36
Most fr(:qu(:ntly cittd W(:f(: obj(:ctions to provisions d(:aling
wlIh tu:ation. Tw(:nty-s(:v(:n f(:ar(:d that under th(: n(:w
constitution th(:r(: would lK no control by J>(:opk overtaxes.
T"d\'(: cit(:d r(:moval ofth(: two-mill limit on state proJ)(:rty
laX kvi(:s as a basis for th(:ir opposition. Oth(:rwise, ar(:asof
principal objection focu$(:d (:ith(:r on the (:xcessiv(: amount
of powu which r(:spond(:nts f(:!t had })(:(:n granttd th(:
gov(:mm(:nt. or upon sJKcific rights which w(:r(: lKing lost,
with water rights lKing mention(:d most fr(:qu(:ntly.
Eight(:(:n vot(:rs m(:ntion(:d lack of information about th(:
propo$(:d constitution or lack oftim(: to study its provisions
as a basis for th(:ir opposition.
Design of Survey
To und(:rstand th(: findings of this study as well as some of
the problems (:ncountered in conducting it, the r(:ader may
find it helpful to know how the survey was designed and
executed. A sampling of 1,000 voters in the June 6 election
produced usable responses from 936 voters (respondents).
Respondents were selected at random from 50 randomly
chosen precincts in 12 of Montana's counties. Respondents
were approached by interviewers as they left their polling
places after voting and asked if they would be willing to
complete a confidential form showing how they voted on the
proposed constitution and side issues, as well as why.
Respondents were also asked to indicate their approximate
age, sex. party preference in the primary, and whether family
income was derived principally from farming or ranching
operations.
Ten volunteer coordinators recruited interviewers for
each of the precincts to be surveyed. Each interviewer was
asked to be present at the assigned precinct on election day
between noon and I p.m. and from 5 p.m. on until 20
responses were secured. Interviewers were compensated for
approximatdy two hours of work.
The twelv(: counties chosen for the survey contained
nearly two-thirds of the registered voters in Montana.
Despite thIS fact, however, their voting populationsdiffer~d
In the followmg respects from the voting populations m
COuntlu which were not mdud(:d in the survey:
1. The population of the counties from which lhe""'"
was derived was more urban in charaet(:r thin thlt of lhe
state in general. Limited resourtes netessitated reslrict,n.
the sample to counties containing the bulk of Montana"
popUlation. Con$(:quently. rural counlles were underrepresented in the survey.
2. In the 12counties included in the survey. an affirmall\e
vote of 55.8 percent was cast for ratification of the proposed
constitution whil(: in the remaining 44 countt(:. not
included in the survey. only 42.4 percent favored ratification
of the propo$(:d constitution.
3. The percentage of voters turning out to vote on the
proposed constitution was slightly higher in the 44 counties
not included in the survey than in the 12 counties which were:
surveyed. In those 44 counties, 69.1 percent of the registered
voters actually voted on the constitutional issue. contrasttd
with a turnout of67.9 percent in the 12 counties from whIch
our respondents were selected.
A discrepancy of greater contero was ob$(:rved in the data
taken from the 12 counties surveyed. Official election returns
show that 58.04 percent of thO$(: voting within the precincts
which we surveyed voted for the proposed constitution. 8y
contrast. 66.77 percent of the respondents in our survey
reported that they voted for the proposed constitution. Thus
a gap of 8.73 percent appeared betwttn the actual vote and
the vote reported by our respondents.
Discrepancies of this magnitude are not uncommon in
survey research but they are difficult to explain. We offer the
following as tentative explanations for the discrepancy:
I. It is possible that opponents of the proposed
CQnstitution were more reluctant to participate in the survey
than were proponents. Such persons may have bttn more
likely to decline when invited 10 participal(: in the survey.
2. Sampling errors are always a possibility. How(:ver, thC'
dala obtained from the survey is consistent in other respC'cts
and falls within the normally expected margin of error
generally assumec' to exist in polling operations.
3. Other studies of voting behavior have discovered the
phenomenon of overreporling. t Some overreporling may be
due to errors in sampling. some due to the faulty memory of
the voter. and some is inexplicable. In certain instances the
youth of some of our interviewers conceivably might have
led to the selection of unrepresentative respondents. We
speculate that some. but not all, of the apparent
ovcrreporting detected in the survey may have been due to a
kind of guilt-feeling that caused individuals who voted
against the proposed constitution on their oflicial ballots to
attempt partial atonement by indicating their support of the
constitution on our survey ballot form.
After giving due recognition toour.sampli~g problems. ~e
believe the survey findings are essentlally valId and that they
serve as a useful counterweight against the SpeCUlatl\C'.
unsupported observations often made by commentators on
the constitutional referendum. The results of the suryc\ are
publi~hed with the hope that they rna)' help to clan f) som(:
aspects of the political process of conslltulionai ratification
in Montana in 1972.
J"'.
'S« Anll"'S Campbe:l1. CI a•• I'M t .....,,(MII )UfC" ,'C.. ~orl.
Wlley.t Son~. Inc. 1%01. PP 9ol.%.lInd Alitun Kanne\ alOd lc-UD [,..,._.;.
-."0 (IcCIOIllte5
\ OIen..nd 'Of\.\Olen •• a "'~. fl'n-,
)UU",jj/ uf f'uJ"'..~, Vol 2lJ.'''\IIU,I. 19(6) P 600
-ntt
Montana Public Affairs Report
Pnor ISSUes of the report are available on request:
November 1961. Ellis Waldron and Emilie Loring,
"The 1967 Montana It'gislative Assembly:'
2. February 1968. David Mason and William Crowley, MA Proposal 10 Modernize Montana's Judicial
System."
J. April 1968. Senator Mike Mansfield, "China: Retrospect and Prospect."
4. October 1968. Ellis Waldron, "Constitutional Issues
in 1968."
5. February 1969. Thomas Payne. "The 1968 Elcelion
in Montana" and Ellis Waldron. "'Apportionment
for the 19705."
6. May 1969. Emilie Loring, "The 1969 Montana
ugisJative Assembly."
7. October 1970. Ellis Waldron. "Montana ConstilUtional Revision Issues in 1970."
8. June 1971. Elizabeth Eastman, "The 1971 Montana
ugislalivc Assembly,"
t016~
ql~oN
9. January 1972. Elizabeth Eastman, -The 19111912 Montana Conslitutional Convention.~
10. March 1972. "Montana's Municipal ReapportIon_
ment Case."
II. April 1972. ~Montana's Proposed Constitution of
1972,"
12. June 1972. ~Montana's 1972 Constilutional Elec.tion."
MONTANA PUBLIC AffAIRS RE:PORT
Buruu or Government Rnarch
Un,ve~ly or Montana
Robel1 E. Eagle. D,IttIOI
Eill. Wakhon, EdllO!'
R. June: ll>ornton, RCKalch AHOaaIC
The ~porl prcKnts 1M ~.uh. or (cKarch and ICJponll~ dcvc~
recommendatIOns Ofl malten oJ publIC COllCl:tll_ lbe Wteaocnts iUId
oplnlOll' uprcJKd arc 1M ICJportJIbrbly OhM COlllnbutJn,authon and do
llOI ~lkd pololUOnJ or lhe BUleau 01 lhe Unrwnal, unlailO Ulod_tai.
Published bllnon'hl, dunn, 1M uadcmoc rear S,nclc COl*S 01
,ubscnpllOll' ...,ubblc on rcqlJC$l.
.uetuOft ·.2Ull118
enUaAV 1.~lJ Z~8t
~leaN ·r PlueO
Il'S6'; ('ln0551"
'E'U('IU~'" I~'
4,)Jl·,15<'~ IU,)WUJol"~'0
~l'''J~l\IUn
1<' Ilr,lJIll:j
HIOd:Jll SllIVHV' :JIlSnd VNVINOLftl