When did this happen? In a hotly-contested effort, the Legislature passed one bill in 1997 beginning this process, to comply with the federal law. That bill was supposed to have died in 1999. However, the 1999 Legislature, by the thinnest of margins, resurrected that bill and gave it new life. Also, Senator Tom Beck (R-Deer Lodge) introduced SB76 in the 1999 session, to make the collection of SSNs apply to hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses.

I thought that SSNs weren't supposed to be used for identification. That was the intent of the original Social Security Act. However, whatever Congress can do, Congress can also undo. Several federal laws have been passed that effect amendments to the original SS Act. The one requiring states to collect SSNs for child support enforcement purposes works as an amendment to the original law which specified that SSNs should not be used for identification.

Is this part of a move to a national I.D. card? Probably. Congress had voted down overt efforts to create an actual national I.D. card that everyone would be required to have in order to travel, work, receive or spend money, go to school, receive government benefits, buy a firearm, and a whole bunch of other activities. However, the advocates of National I.D. keep trying to get this mandated via the back door. Two examples include the proposal for a national health care card, without which a person could not seek or obtain medical assistance, and the federal requirement that all state drivers licenses contain information that cause them to conform to a national standard, so that state drivers licenses would become a de facto national I.D. All of these attempts at a national I.D. have one thing in common - use of SSN as an identifier of individuals.

Doesn't this amount to effective registration of hunters and gun owners? Maybe. Actually, the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) has already been keeping copies of hunting licenses for years, and it is presumed that persons buying hunting licenses own guns. However, figuring out who owns guns in Montana is not hard. We estimate that 90% to 95% of the households in Montana contain firearms. Therefore, any outside entity wanting to know who in Montana possesses firearms would just assume that every Montana citizen owns or has access to guns, and they'd be right far more often than wrong.

If this initiative passes, won't Montana lose $58 million per year for children? Probably not. First, this money is not "for the children". It goes primarily to pay the salaries of people working in the welfare industry. So, this money is primarily for career state bureaucrats, not for children. Second, other states have sought and obtained exemptions from the feds to allow them to continue receiving the federal money without collecting all the SSNs purportedly required. Third, other states have flat refused to collect SSNs for the feds, and are still receiving the federal money.

Won't the authorities argue that Montana children will suffer, maybe starve, if I-141 passes? Of course they will. The state employees who benefit from this money will make any argument, no matter how strained or untrue, in order to keep the money coming.

Will signing I-141 repeal the SSN law? No, signing I-141 will only put the measure on the ballot to give the people of Montana a chance to vote on the issue. We believe in the democratic process, and that Montana citizens ought to be able to vote on significant issues. We trust the voters.

Doesn't widespread use of SSNs help promote fraud and identity theft? Yes. Identity theft is becoming a sizable problem in the U.S. There are major crime rings, especially in the Orient, that specialize in cashing in on your identity(here). This is also done by individuals in the U.S. They steal literally tens of thousands of dollars in fraudulent transactions in your name, and you get blamed. Creditors may spend years hounding you and ruining your credit to try to get you to pay back what these bandits have stolen. It all begins with your SSN. These thieves usually buy your SSN from a store clerk or low-level government employee. If the identity thieves can get your SSN, your name and address, they can rip you off. People have lost their homes, jobs, and even families, because of identity theft. Everyone who advises about protecting against identity theft, including the federal government, strongly recommends against releasing your SSN to anyone, except for SS or tax purposes.

Isn't privacy guaranteed by the Montana Constitution? Yes. The Montana Constitution contains a very clear reservation of individual privacy at Article II, Section 10. Thus, individual privacy in Montana is a constitutional right.

If privacy is a constitutional right, how can the government get away with demanding our SSNs? Because the Legislature passed the law requiring FWP to collect SSNs for hunting and fishing licenses, and the courts have not yet ruled that this scheme is unconstitutional.

Will I-141 repeal the law requiring SSNs for drivers licenses and other licenses? No. I-141 will only fix the problem for hunting, fishing and trapping licenses. There are as many as 30 or 40 other kinds of licenses the state issues for which SSNs are now required. The Montana Supreme Court has severely limited the people's ability to fix this kind of problem with initiatives by ruling, in the CI-75 case, that initiatives may only effect a very narrow area of law. This amounts to a significant shift of power from people to government, something the Montana Supreme Court commonly does. This circumstance prevents us from amending other areas of the law than that covering hunting, fishing and trapping licenses.

Is there some way to fix these other areas of law? Yes. Begin with a successful I-141. Then, make the SSN/privacy issue the most common item of discussion at every candidate forum in Montana. Make sure that all candidates are required to give specific answers about what they will do to fix the problem if elected. Do not settle for any wishy-washy answers, such as "We'll have to see just what bills are introduced.", or any other prevarication. Once we have elected pro-privacy people to the Legislature, then the Legislature can fix the SSN/privacy problem.

Why did the Legislature surrender our privacy for federal money? One of MSSA's members puts it this way, "Since we already know the term for a woman who will 'sacrifice her principles' for money, what is the appropriate term for an entire state legislature that will sell us out for a promised/threatened $58 million?" In both cases, the answer is the same - some people care more about temporary security or money than about freedom and principle. This includes a lot of elected legislators.