Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would bar judges from chairing Judicial Standards Commission amid debate over impartiality
Summary
House Bill 36 would prohibit judges from serving as chair of the Judicial Standards Commission; proponents said the change removes a perception of conflict, opponents including the ACLU argued it removes an important judicial voice and risks undermining expertise
State Representative Lee Nave opened House Bill 36 by telling the committee the bill would change the commission’s chair: “This bill says that the chair of that commission will not be a judge,” Nave said, adding that judges’ expertise remains valuable but that removing the chairmanship helps “disassociate decisions by the commission from actions of the court.”
The ACLU of Montana’s Henry Seaton appeared as an opponent and urged a no vote. “Prohibiting judges to serve the people of Montana as presiding officer of the JSC silences an important voice in the regulation of the judicial practice,” Seaton said. He argued the bill “jeopardizes the separation of powers” and warned it could “undermine Montana’s faith in a fair and impartial judiciary.”
Informational witnesses included court administrator Dave McAlpin, who described commission procedures: “The commission is chaired by a judge per statute,” McAlpin said, and explained Rule 15(c) (JSC rule) that a chair or designee presides at hearings, which “shall be conducted in accordance to the Montana rules of evidence.” McAlpin also said the commission has two judges, one attorney, and two citizen members.
Committee debate focused on trade-offs between perceived impartiality and subject-matter expertise. Representative Staffman and others said judges are trained to be impartial; others said the chair’s status could create the perception of undue influence because judges are supervised by the Supreme Court. Some members suggested alternate language, including limiting the presiding officer to non-officers-of-the-court or allowing the commission to elect its chair, with the sponsor indicating she would consider amendments.
Outcome: the committee closed the hearing with no floor action recorded in the transcript. Members discussed potential amendments (for example, specifying that the chair may not be an officer of the court or clarifying whether the commission itself may elect its chair) and asked the sponsor to consider changes for committee action.
