Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Politics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves measure loosening limits on judges’ political activity; opponents warn of politicizing courts
Summary
House Bill 169, which would allow judges and judicial candidates to attend partisan events and accept political endorsements and prepares statutory groundwork for future partisan judicial candidacy, passed the House on second reading 56-44 after extended debate over judicial impartiality.
Representative Andrea Millett, sponsor of House Bill 169, said the bill would allow judges and judicial candidates to engage in several political activities that current judicial conduct rules restrict — for example attending partisan dinners and accepting endorsements — and would lay groundwork for future changes if judges are later permitted to run as partisan candidates.
Supporters argued the bill reflects Montana’s small-community political culture and would give voters more information about judicial candidates. Millett said allowing certain activities would “help to ensure that judicial elections are part of a larger political discourse where the public can better understand the vision of candidates for the bench.”
Opponents mounted sustained objections on separation-of-powers and impartiality grounds. Representative Melinda Cunningham said she feared the measures would erode the appearance of impartiality, drawing an analogy to medical-industry influence over physicians: “As a result of finding that indeed, we physicians were influenced by those gifts… I think the judicial profession should adhere to similar rules.” Representative Staffman warned that the bill would lead to judges making partisan speeches or accepting endorsements that later raise fairness issues in contested cases.
Floor debate also featured practical concerns: Representative Zephyr noted judges responding to endorsement questionnaires could then be disqualified from cases that touch on positions they previously endorsed, creating workload and recusal complications. Representative Frantz argued partisan judicial elections would change who runs for the bench and risk losing judges with a judicial temperament who avoid partisan politics.
After floor debate the House voted to recommend HB 169 do pass; the clerk reported 56 representatives voting aye and 44 no. The vote records on second reading were captured and the bill will continue through the legislative process.
