Proposal to create Montana judicial performance commission draws split testimony

Sen. Tom McElvray told the House Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 45 would establish a Montana Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to collect anonymous attorney and juror surveys, court‑room observer reports and disciplinary history to produce midterm reports for judges and pre‑election materials for voters. “Whereas it provides Montana citizens with a fair, responsible, and useful information about judicial performance,” McElvray said, citing the bill’s purpose to give voters more objective information about judges.

Supporters urged the committee to back the bill to provide voters information they lack about judges’ conduct and performance. Online proponent testimony called the measure “the most critical bill” of the session because it seeks to reestablish balance between branches and give voters usable information about judicial candidates.

Opponents said the bill risks politicizing the judiciary and warned of partisan misuse. Anne Sherwood of Friends of the Third Branch said objective, timeliness‑based surveys already exist (District Court Management Advisory Committee) and the commission as drafted would be costly and rely on subjective measures that non‑lawyers may not be equipped to assess. She highlighted gaps in the fiscal note (limited staff and survey budget) and argued the planned courtroom observers and public narrative summaries could be misleading.

Tribal and industry opponents echoed apprehension: a Blackfeet tribal representative called the proposal a partisan attack and urged rejection; trade groups noted Utah’s experience and cautioned that commissions can be used for political attacks. The Montana Judges Association appeared as informational and asked questions about methodology and implementation.

Committee members asked detailed questions about commission composition, safeguards, whether nonlawyer members should be limited or counterbalanced, how surveys would be administered and whether reports would be included in the voter information pamphlet and online. Sponsor said midterm evaluations are confidential to help judges improve, while pre‑election reports would be public and posted online and in the pamphlet; he said attorneys would evaluate legal fidelity and non‑lawyers would provide observational feedback.

What’s next: The committee will consider the bill with many potential amendments — on commission makeup, partisan balance, survey scope, review procedures and fiscal resources — before an executive action vote.