Missoula town hall warns Montana judiciary under coordinated attack; panel urges civic action
Loading...
Summary
Panelists and a state senator at a Missoula town hall said a wave of bills and recent procedural changes are eroding judicial independence in Montana, described specific incidents (including a broad legislative subpoena and a change to the judicial selection process) and urged residents to contact legislators and use citizen initiatives to protect the courts.
A packed Missoula town hall on judicial independence heard panelists and a state senator warn that recent Montana legislative activity and procedural changes threaten the impartiality of judges and the state’s constitutional safeguards.
"We live in a state that has the best constitution," said State Senator Andrea Olsen, urging attendees to treat constitutional protections as the basis for civic action. Panelist Constance Van Cle, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana’s Alexander Blewett III School of Law, described mounting pressure on judges from across the political spectrum and stressed institutional safeguards that limit political influence.
Panelists cited concrete developments they said demonstrate those pressures. Olsen said the Montana legislature drafted roughly 35 bills in a recent session aimed at restricting courts’ authority and increasing political control over judicial outcomes. "They created 35 bills last session, specifically attacking," Olsen said. Panelists also noted that state law changes now allow political parties to contribute to judicial campaigns and reported efforts to require judges to declare party affiliation on campaign materials.
Panelists pointed to a specific confrontation between the legislature and the courts over a broad subpoena for the court administrator’s emails. "The subpoena was really broad, and it was getting all of those emails, and then they were being made public immediately," Constance Van Cle said, describing a Montana Supreme Court response that quashed the subpoena and removed the materials from public circulation. Panelists linked that episode to subsequent disciplinary proceedings involving the attorney general’s office.
Speakers described the 50-year judicial nominating commission as a previously transparent mechanism to vet candidates for judicial appointment, and said a 2021 change shifted appointment power to the governor and reduced public scrutiny. "In 2021, we eliminated a process that worked for 50 years that was very extensive, open, transparent," Olsen said.
The panel offered practical guidance for citizens who want to push back. They recommended contacting legislators and senators, participating in legislative hearings, supporting initiatives to restore nonpartisan selection processes, and using established watchdog resources such as Friends of the Third Branch, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the American Bar Association. "Write to your senators and your delegation," Olsen urged, providing her office phone number and encouraging constituents to engage directly.
On federal nominations, panelists suggested focusing on objective qualifications: one attendee raised the nomination of a U.S. attorney candidate and cited an opinion questioning whether the nominee met a conventional 12-year-experience benchmark used by the American Bar Association. Panelists advised constituents to read neutral evaluations, contact confirmation committees and make their views known to senators.
Organizers closed by asking volunteers to help run future town halls, reminding attendees that MCAT filmed the event so those who could not attend could watch later, and urging continued civic participation. The panel also committed to sharing slides and follow-up information by email.
The forum did not produce formal votes or policy decisions; panelists framed their recommendations as advocacy options and next steps for citizens who want to protect judicial independence in Montana.
