House bill would move Judicial Standards Commission under Department of Justice administration

Representative Lee Nave, sponsor of House Bill 35, opened the committee hearing saying the bill would “move the Judicial Standards Commission away from the judicial branch and administratively attach it to the Department of Justice.”

The bill, Nave said, is intended to reduce the appearance of judicial influence over the commission that investigates complaints of judicial misconduct. “This places no additional burden on DOJ resources,” the sponsor said, noting the commission is unpaid, works remotely, and maintains a small budget for outside investigators.

Why it matters: the Montana Constitution assigns the Legislature the authority to establish a Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) to investigate ethical complaints against judges; the JSC may issue subpoenas, perform investigations and recommend discipline to the Supreme Court. The sponsor and some committee members said moving the commission’s administrative home is intended to reduce perceived conflicts because judges and attorneys on the commission are supervised or regulated by the court.

Informational witness Dave McAlpin, court administrator for the Montana Judicial Branch, described current operations and limits on his knowledge of specific complaints. “We have a quarter staff allocated to support for the commission,” McAlpin said, describing a 0.25 FTE who handles intake, agendas and paperwork. He said investigations are typically contracted and that the commission’s report on 2024 cases had just been delivered to the Clerk of the House.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and McAlpin on practical consequences if the commission moved. Representative Staffman asked whether there were known instances of “undue influence” from the Supreme Court; Nave gave a procedural example in which the court asserted it should approve the JSC’s rules before the commission adopted them. McAlpin said he is “not privy” to complaints because of internal separation (a “Chinese wall”) and reported only that some judges retired after complaints in the last year.

Several members suggested alternatives. Representative Cunningham and others asked about placing the commission under the Department of Administration rather than the Department of Justice to avoid perceived conflicts; Nave said department of administration was considered but staff concluded keeping administrative oversight near the justice/judicial budget provided helpful proximity to budgeting and oversight. Representative Nave said she would consider a friendly amendment to require the commission to hire its own personnel (changing “may” to “shall”) though noting that would have a budget effect because it could create an additional FTE.

The committee also discussed the commission’s composition and leadership, which the sponsor said is set by the constitution—two judges, one attorney, and two citizens—while emphasizing this bill affects administrative placement rather than the commission’s investigative authorities. Several members sought clarifying language to preserve the commission’s independence in statute; the sponsor said language in the draft makes clear the JSC “shall exercise its functions independently of the Department of Justice and without approval or control of the department.”

Outcome and next steps: the hearing closed without a committee vote. Members debated possible friendly amendments (for example, requiring the JSC to hire its own administrator and whether the Department of Administration would be a preferable alternative). No formal action or vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript.