Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana House Judiciary advances bill allowing party labels on Supreme Court ballots
Summary
The House Judiciary committee advanced HB 8 38, which would let Supreme Court candidates list party affiliation and advance the top two primary vote-getters; opponents from the State Bar, trial lawyers and civic groups warned the change would politicize the bench and undermine public trust.
The House Judiciary committee on [date not specified] voted to advance House Bill 8 38, a measure that would permit candidates for chief justice and justice of the Montana Supreme Court to announce a political party affiliation or run as nonpartisan and would send the top two primary finishers to the general election.
Sponsor Brandon Lear told the committee the bill is optional and ‘‘may, not shall’’ require a candidate to declare an affiliation, and that the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election. ‘‘This will allow our judges to run under any party affiliation that they want to, including nonpartisan,’’ Lear said during his opening remarks.
Opponents outnumbered proponents during the hearing. Al Smith of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association urged members to table the proposal, saying partisan labels ‘‘interject’’ political pressure into judicial selection and risk conflicts with judicial ethics rules. ‘‘Judges look at the constitution, the law, the facts of the case. They should be free from political pressure,’’ Smith said.
Bruce Spencer, representing the State Bar of Montana, told the committee the bar opposes the bill and warned that party labels ‘‘create the appearance of impropriety’’ and could overshadow qualifications. ‘‘A partisan label placed on a judicial candidate overshadows their actual qualifications,’’ Spencer said.
Multiple public witnesses — including representatives of Friends of the Third Branch, Northern Plains Resource Council and longtime practicing attorneys — testified the state’s nonpartisan system has preserved judicial impartiality for decades and that partisan designations would invite more outside money and erode public trust.
Committee members questioned how the bill would work in the primary; Representative Staffman and the sponsor agreed the measure would operate like a form of blanket primary in which voters could encounter candidates of different affiliations on a single ballot. Members also pressed whether codifying party labels would conflict with judicial canon 4.1, which limits certain political activity by judges; sponsor Lear said the bill would not force judges to declare a party and that the statute and judicial canon could coexist.
After debate, Vice Chair Deming moved that HB 8 38 ‘‘do pass.’’ The roll-call vote recorded 12 in favor and 8 opposed, and the bill was reported out of the House Judiciary committee.
What’s next: HB 8 38 advances from committee; the legislature’s next steps will determine whether it reaches the full House and ultimately the governor. The record shows robust opposition from bar groups and civic organizations; supporters say the measure will give voters more information about candidates.
