A constitutional initiative that would proactively prevent any kind of real-estate transfer tax in Montana may sound good in theory, but let’s look a little deeper.

Yes, we understand the impulse to resist what seems like a relentless, incremental application of taxes and fees at every level of government, but as citizens we also need to make sure that our legislators have all the tools they need at their disposal to make sure they fulfill another fundamental responsibility — to balance the budget.

Proponents of CI-105 say the ban on a real-estate transfer tax is necessary because the state Legislature has already considered several proposals for taxes, ranging from 1 percent to 4 percent, on real estate transactions. The thing is, the Legislature has never passed one, and a constitutional protection against a tax that doesn’t exist isn’t necessary.

By no means do we support a real estate transfer tax, and if one were proposed again in the Legislature, we would  oppose it, except under extreme circumstances.

But the point is that extreme circumstances DO occur, and the Legislature needs to be able to act without having its hands tied when emergencies arise.

The Constitution should not be the instrument that defines state tax policies, partly because that responsibility is already constitutionally defined as the Legislature’s. And Montana’s citizens legislature is highly accessible and generally responsive to the public’s will. Bad tax policies will be met with strong resistance.

The state Constitution is a framework document, outlining general responsibilities and limitations for government, along with citizens’ rights. It should not be peppered with detailed tax policies, and there is reason to be concerned that if one measure like CI-105 passes, others will follow.

Other states have made the mistake of letting that happen, resulting in a variety of unintended consequences. To make sure that doesn’t happen here, Montana voters should regard changes to the state Constitution with the highest scrutiny. Vote no on I-105.