Senate Bill 42, carried by Senator Daniel Emerich, would convert most Montana judicial races to partisan primaries and elections, allow political parties to endorse candidates and permit party contributions to judicial campaigns.

The bill and proponents' case

Emerich told the Judiciary Committee the bill was requested by the Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform and framed it as a voter-education measure: partisan labels and party involvement, he argued, would give voters more information in low-profile judicial races and curb the influence of wealthy outside groups by enabling voters to identify and support candidates whose values match theirs.

Lieutenant Governor Kristin Juris testified for herself and Governor Gianforte in full support, saying partisan involvement already occurs in practice and the bill would align law with that reality. She described a 2016 Montana Supreme Court campaign in which a party spent substantial sums and said partisan labeling would be "voter education." Proponents including the Montana Family Foundation and Montana Citizens Council on Judicial Accountability argued party labels clarify judicial candidates' philosophies and increase voter participation.

Major opposition and core arguments

A broad coalition opposed the bill. Bruce Spencer, representing the State Bar of Montana, argued partisan judicial elections have long been avoided in Montana (mandatory nonpartisan since 1935) to preserve impartiality and public confidence. Spencer presented past research referenced in testimony (including state and national surveys) that many Montanans prefer nonpartisan judges and warned partisan elections could undermine perceived impartiality.

Other opponents included Northern Plains Resource Council, tribal representatives from the Blackfeet and Rocky Boy tribes, the Montana Trial Lawyers Association and legal practitioners who described downstream effects when judges are seen as partisan. Opponents cited historical examples ("Copper Kings" influence in Butte) and national critiques of partisan judicial selection. Several speakers said partisan labels would not remove outside spending and could increase partisan advertising and pressure on judges.

Questions from committee members

Committee members asked whether partisan labels would discourage judges who prefer to remain nonpartisan from running; Lieutenant Governor Juris said judges could run as independents but the bill requires party affiliation for candidates on partisan primaries. Senators pressed on whether partisan selection would increase money in judicial races; Rep. James Reavis, a former public defender appearing as an opponent, said it would likely amplify partisan campaigning and make everyday cases feel political for litigants. The State Bar and opponents repeatedly noted that five separate federal appeals applying Janus to state bars were denied certiorari as an analogy to how courts handle compelled association and funding (this point arose in a different bill's hearing but echoed concerns about institutional effects).

Outcome

The committee hearing on SB 42 recorded extensive testimony from proponents and opponents but no committee vote on the bill in the provided transcript. Speakers on both sides stressed their views were about preserving impartial courts versus increasing voter information.

Ending

The hearing closed after extended testimony, with senators indicating detailed concerns and questions about definitions, downstream effects, and implementation. No formal action was recorded in the transcript excerpt provided.