GREAT FALLS -- The work of paid signature-gatherers to qualify three anti-government ballot measures came under scrutiny in a Great Falls courtroom Friday, as initiative opponents outlined what they said is widespread fraud and illegal practices.

From misrepresenting the contents of the initiatives to tricking Montanans into signing all three at one time, the signature-gatherers -- most of whom weren't from Montana -- ran roughshod over Montana's legal requirements for gathering petition signatures, witnesses testified Friday.

"As one might expect, when money gets involved in a political dispute, there is the opportunity for mischief," said Mike Meloy, a Helena attorney representing the initiative opponents. "In this case, the mischief was pervasive and it was serious."

Meloy spoke at a hearing before state District Judge Dirk Sandefur of Great Falls, who is being asked to remove from the ballot all three measures: Constitutional Initiatives 97 and 98 and Initiative 154.

Sandefur said late Friday he expects to issue a ruling by next week.

CI-97 would cap state spending; CI-98 allows the attempted recall of state judges for any reason; I-154 says property owners can demand and receive compensation from the government if they feel a government action has devalued their property.

Supporters of the measures, which are on the Nov. 7 general election ballot, said while some signature-gatherers may have skirted the law, it doesn't mean the measures should be kicked off the ballot.

Thousands of Montanans legitimately signed petitions to qualify the measures and deserve to have the chance to vote on them, said Patrick Watt, a Great Falls attorney representing three voters who willingly signed the petitions.

"The evidence will show that, rather than it being pervasive like a whole rotten fruit salad we're probably talking about a bad apple with a few spots," Watt said. "We're not going to throw out every piece of fruit in the store because of a few bad apples."

Yet opponents of the measures alleged Friday that legions of paid, out-of-state signature-gatherers committed widespread violations of the law.

The opponents' main witness was Jackie Boyle, coordinator for the campaign against CI-97.

Boyle said she spent many hours and days reviewing petitions and signatures and witnessing signature-gatherers first-hand, to see if any irregularities occurred.

She recounted several things she and other CI-97 opponents discovered:

n Some signature-gatherers, who sign an affidavit saying that voters signing the petition understand what they're signing, could not accurately describe the measures when asked to do so.

A signature-gatherer in Butte described CI-97 as "allowing voters to vote on your taxes," she said.

Others, when describing the judicial recall measure, would point to a nearby bar and say a judge was inside getting drunk, and would be emerging from the bar to issue a ruling, and that he needed to be gotten rid off, Boyle said.

n A signature-gatherer would ask people to sign I-154, and when they agreed, tell them they had to sign three times. In reality, the voters were signing all three measures without knowing it, Boyle and others testified.

Boyle said several voters who reported this tactic had their signatures taken by gatherers supervised by Larry Schumacher of Tulsa, Okla., who turned in 10,000 signatures.

n One signature-gatherer, Marvin King, signed an affidavit vouching for 41,000 signatures, Boyle said, and apparently had listed a false address in Billings, which violates the law.

The address turned out to be that of the sister of Trevis Butcher, the Winifred rancher and political activist coordinating all three initiatives, Boyle said. Other signature-gatherers listed addresses that didn't appear to be permanent, she added.

Boyle said King couldn't possibly vouch that all of those signers knew what they were signing.

Boyle also testified that 94 percent of the $673,000 spent by initiative supporters on signature-gathering was paid to people with out-of-state addresses.

During cross-examination, Watt attempted to refute some of Boyle's points, arguing that signature-gathers who turn in the signatures don't have to be present and witness every signing.

The law says the gatherer signing the affidavit must swear that he or she "gathered or assisted in gathering" the signatures, and therefore those who turned in thousands of signatures didn't violate the law, Watt suggested.

"Then all of your analysis, the logic falls apart, doesn't it?" he asked Boyle.

Boyle said no, and that the fact one person signed for thousands of signatures only confirms that they couldn't possibly know what their assistants were telling prospective signers.