Senate Bill 41, sponsored by Senator Daniel Emmerich, would require a defined random-selection procedure when a substituted or disqualified district court judge is replaced. The sponsor said the bill responds to inconsistent local practices and the public perception that replacements are handpicked.

Senator Emmerich said the bill “calls for the random selection of subsequent judges” and that the term "random" is defined as a selection “from a larger group by chance.” He told the committee the law would instruct the Office of the Court Administrator to establish a procedure and leave operational detail to the courts.

Proponent testimony included James King, who described personal experiences and urged a uniform process. The State Bar, represented by Bruce Spencer, and tribes including a speaker from Blackfeet and Rocky Boy, opposed legislation that, in their view, encroaches on the courts’ rulemaking authority. Spencer urged the committee to petition the Montana Supreme Court to enforce or change court rules rather than legislate procedural court rules.

Dave McAlpin, the new state Court Administrator, appeared as an informational witness and provided case counts and context. He said Montana district courts resolved roughly 56,000 filings across 22 districts and that calendar-year 2024 saw about 450 substitution motions—less than 1% of the total caseload—and that roughly 75% of substitutions occurred in multi-judge districts. McAlpin told the committee the judicial branch uses software that moves assignments and that the court will work with the committee and sponsor to ensure the software produces an appropriately random assignment, but he warned that a purely random assignment ignoring geography and caseload could be costly and impractical.

Committee members asked how to define the “larger group” used for random selection and whether the bill would prevent a judge from naming a single replacement; the sponsor said the statute intentionally left the definition flexible so courts could apply practical limits (for example geographic radius and caseload) when assigning replacements. The State Bar and tribal witnesses emphasized separation-of-powers concerns and recommended a petition to the Supreme Court if a rule change is desired.

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. The sponsor said he would work with members and the court administrator on implementation details and possible amendments to clarify the definition of the pool and practical limits to avoid unnecessary travel and expense.