Montana bill would let judges accept some partisan activity; hearing exposes split over impartiality

Representative Tom Millett introduced House Bill 169 on behalf of himself, saying the bill would allow judges and judicial candidates to do certain activities now prohibited by Canon 4.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including attending events sponsored by partisan candidates and accepting political endorsements.

“[My bill] will allow judges or judicial candidates to attend events sponsored by a partisan political candidate,” Representative Tom Millett said, noting he took the proposal from conversations with a district judge and a comment by Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Rice. Millett told the committee he intends the bill to remove sanctions for two canon provisions (identified in his handout as numbers 5 and 7) and to preserve the stricter rules (the “blue” items on his handout) that prohibit uses such as campaign contributions for private benefit.

Supporters said the measure would increase transparency and voter information. Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, and disability- and civic‑sector witnesses did not oppose the bill but were not primary witnesses on it; public testimony focused largely on legal and ethical implications.

Opponents, including Bruce Spencer representing the State Bar of Montana, urged rejection. “Judges should always avoid the even the appearance of impropriety because it is vital to the judicial system that our judges be deemed and looked as independent arbiters of the law and the facts,” Spencer testified. He told the committee that partisan activity can create a perception that a judge “is leaning one way or the other,” which would harm public confidence.

Several legislators pressed legal and constitutional questions. Representative Staffman asked whether allowing a judge to “hold office in a political party” (a provision in a section of the draft) conflicts with the Montana Constitution. Spencer and others noted a constitutional provision saying judges shall not “hold office in a political party.” Representative Millett told the committee he would strike the subsection he believed conflicted with Article VII, section 9(3) of the Montana Constitution.

The committee also discussed federal case law. Representative Etchart noted a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Sanders County Republican Central Committee v. Bullock, 2012) that previously affected Montana’s restrictions; members referenced later state cases and urged careful review of precedent and constitutionality before changing the canons.

Committee members and witnesses debated whether partisan labels or endorsements would actually change how judges rule. Bruce Spencer said surveys show states with partisan judicial elections tend to fare worse in perceived judicial climate; Representative Tom Millett and several legislators replied that judges are trained to be impartial and that partisan disclosure could help voters make informed choices.

No formal action was taken; the hearing record closed with Millett reserving the right to close and asking members for a do-pass vote later. The bill drew sustained questioning from multiple committee members and several members of the public who testified about perceived risks to judicial independence and public confidence.

Why it matters: the bill would change long-standing limits on political activity by those who serve on the bench or seek judicial office in Montana. Supporters say it increases transparency for voters in a largely rural state where community events are central; opponents say it undercuts judicial independence and increases the risk of perceived bias.

Next steps: the sponsor reserved the right to close; the committee did not vote during the hearing.