Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to elect Supreme Court justices by district fails after constitutional and representation debate
Summary
House Bill 646 would have created supreme court districts for election of justices rather than statewide elections. Opponents raised constitutional concerns and warned the pool of qualified candidates would shrink; the bill failed second reading.
House Bill 646, introduced by Speaker Lear, would have required Montana Supreme Court justices to be elected from districts rather than elected statewide, with the Chief Justice still chosen statewide. The sponsor argued district elections would “better represent the state.”
Opponents including Representative France argued the Montana Constitution envisions the Supreme Court as a statewide court and that dividing the court into districts raises constitutional questions and risks narrowing the pool of qualified applicants. Representative France said the constitution gives the legislature authority to set judicial district boundaries for the District Court but that the Supreme Court was established as a statewide body; electing justices by district could create parochial pressures and hamper statewide judicial perspective. Representative Byrne supported the bill and argued districts could help justices remain connected to regional concerns.
The House recorded a second‑reading vote: 48 yes, 51 no; House Bill 646 failed to pass second reading.
