Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Partisanship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects bill to allow partisan political activity by judges; measure defeated and later indefinitely postponed
Summary
The Senate rejected a bill (COSPO 169 / House Bill 169) that would allow judges and judicial candidates greater freedom to engage in partisan political activity. The measure failed on floor roll call and was later indefinitely postponed after extended debate over judicial independence.
The Montana Senate voted against a proposal to permit judges and judicial candidates broader freedom to participate in partisan political activity, with opponents arguing the change would undermine judicial independence.
Sponsor Senator Emmerich described the measure as ‘‘our judicial freedom bill,’’ saying judges should enjoy the same free-speech and associational rights as other citizens. The bill would have allowed judicial candidates and sitting judges to attend political events, endorse partisan candidates and publicly identify with political organizations.
Opponents warned the change would politicize the judiciary and cited studies and examples from other states. A senator opposed on the floor urged colleagues to ‘‘think about the implications’’ and said recent surveys showed more than 70% of respondents in two state surveys opposed partisan judicial elections. Another critic, Senator Newman, said ‘‘judges should be making their decisions based on what is just, not what is popular.’’
On the roll call, the motion to concur on House Bill 169 failed, with 22 senators voting aye and 27 voting nay. Later the Senate took a separate motion and voted 29–20 to indefinitely postpone the measure.
Senators debating the bill raised several points: whether partisanship and impartiality are distinct concepts; whether existing practices already show partisan influence; and whether changes of this kind have produced negative outcomes in other states. Supporters argued for parity of free‑speech rights; opponents argued for the long-standing tradition of nonpartisan judicial elections in Montana and urged that the courts need protection from partisan pressure.
Because the bill failed and was then indefinitely postponed, no statutory change was enacted and the current rules governing judicial conduct and elections remain in place.
