House Judiciary hears bill to let judges attend partisan events, accept endorsements; Bar warns of appearance-of-impropriety

Representative Tom Millett opened discussion of House Bill 169, telling the House Judiciary Committee the proposal would allow judges and judicial candidates to attend or buy tickets to partisan political events and to seek and accept endorsements currently prohibited under Canon 4.1 of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct. "This is my own contribution to the sorely needed judicial reform," Millett said as he described a handout showing the canons the bill would leave unchanged and those it would alter.

Millett read from commentary attributed to a Supreme Court justice arguing judges should not be barred from civic campaign events and said the bill’s near‑term change would remove sanctions for attendance and for accepting endorsements; broader partisan activity in the bill would be contingent on whether the Legislature later allows partisan judicial elections. "Those [activities] would be optional," he said, adding judges could continue to run or act nonpartisan if they prefer.

Bruce Spencer, speaking for the State Bar of Montana, urged the committee to reject the bill. "Judges should always avoid the even the appearance of impropriety," Spencer said, arguing that partisan activity risks eroding the public’s view of judges as independent arbiters and could impair confidence in the judicial process. He cited survey research and said states with partisan judicial elections have lower rankings in judicial climate surveys.

Committee members pressed both sides on history and constitutional authority. Several asked whether other states’ partisan systems produce worse outcomes; Spencer pointed to business‑and‑judicial climate surveys he said correlate with partisan contests. Representative Staffman highlighted Montana’s Constitution (Article VII, Section 9(3)), which he read aloud, and asked whether allowing certain activities — notably holding party office — would conflict with the constitution. Millett said he had not initially noticed that provision and told the committee he was "willing to strike 2 alpha from this bill because I do believe that is unconstitutional," identifying the specific subsection he would remove.

Much of the questioning focused on endorsements and endorsement questionnaires: whether organizations require answers that would amount to promises about issues likely to come before the courts, and whether such commitments would conflict with existing Canon 4.1 subparts that prohibit pledges or promises inconsistent with impartial judicial performance. Millett said he expected judicial candidates to remain cautious and that existing complaint procedures under the canons would apply if judges violated the rules.

Public witnesses from several counties also opposed the bill, voicing concern that permitting partisan activity or endorsements would allow money or partisan influence into judicial races and further erode confidence. John Marshall of Sanders County asked whether the measure would strengthen Montanans’ belief in a fair judiciary; he said it would not.

The committee closed the hearing without taking executive action on HB169. The debate centered on whether the proposed statutory change intrudes on the Supreme Court’s authority to adopt judicial conduct rules and whether permitting attendance and endorsements would materially affect judicial impartiality. Millett said the bill’s changes are optional for judges and would give voters more information about a candidate’s values; opponents said that would be outweighed by the appearance of partisanship and risk to public trust.

What's next: The hearing was closed; any statutory changes would require further committee consideration and potential amendments addressing constitutional concerns Millett flagged.