Committee tables study of judicial selection after initial 'do pass' motion fails

Representative Griffith, sponsor of House Joint Resolution 64, told the House State Administration committee that HJR 64 would create an interim study to examine methods of selecting and evaluating judges and to add transparency to judicial elections. Griffith said concerns about money flowing into the judiciary have grown since the Citizens United decision and described the proposal as a bipartisan, informational effort that would include the governor's office, the judiciary, retired judges and attorneys at the table.

Griffith told the committee that the study would examine three broad approaches to judicial selection — continued election, merit-based appointment, or hybrid approaches — and would consider where evaluations and transparency measures might reasonably apply (Supreme Court, district courts, municipal courts). He referenced a 2005 American Bar Association study and work by O'Connor and Brennan–affiliated institutes as materials the interim committee could review. "I'm holding out my hand," Griffith said, urging members to come together and study the options rather than impose a national model on Montana.

Committee members asked how the resolution differs from an ordinary committee study and whether the Legislative Council or an interim committee would lead the work. Representative Cochran asked for clarification on process; Griffith said an interim committee would likely set the study's scope and that the governor's office and judiciary would participate as nonvoting contributors. Representative Rexton explicitly asked whether the study would address the influx of money into elections after Citizens United; Griffith said that question was part of the intended review and that some remedies could require constitutional amendments.

After discussion the committee moved to executive action. A motion that HJR 64 "do pass" failed on a roll-call vote; the clerk announced 9 ayes and 10 noes. A substitute motion to table the resolution then passed by voice/roll-call with the clerk reporting 19 ayes and 0 noes. The Chair closed the hearing on House Joint Resolution 64 and the resolution was formally tabled. No in-room or online proponents, opponents, or informational witnesses spoke during the public-comment portion of the HJR 64 hearing.

Next steps: Because the resolution was tabled by the committee, it will not advance at this time; committee members may later take the item off the table or reintroduce related legislation. The committee recessed for and later conducted executive action before moving on to other business.