The Montana Senate has passed Senate Bill 42, a bill that would require judicial candidates at all levels – from Supreme Court justices to municipal judges – to declare a political party affiliation when running for office. Sponsored by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, SB 42 passed the Senate by a 28-22 vote on Thursday, despite strong opposition from some Democrats who fear the bill could politicize the judiciary.
The bill now heads to the Montana House, where a similar measure, House Bill 259, was voted down earlier the same day. Despite the setback, House Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick plans to introduce his own version, which would apply only to Montana Supreme Court candidates. Governor Greg Gianforte, a Republican, expressed his support for SB 42 before its passage, calling it a step forward in providing voters with clearer information about judicial candidates.
While proponents argue that party affiliation would help voters make more informed decisions, critics warn that it could lead to a judicial system influenced by political agendas, undermining impartiality. The controversy surrounding the bill highlights a broader debate about the role of politics in Montana’s judiciary and concerns over judicial independence.
Partisan History of Montana Judges
Montana’s judicial system has a history of partisan involvement, despite the nonpartisan nature of most judicial elections. Several judges have had notable political backgrounds before taking the bench. For instance, Justice Mike McGrath, who served as the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, had a well-documented history of partisan politics before his appointment to the court. McGrath had previously served as the state’s Attorney General and County Attorney was a member of the Democratic Party’s Executive Board, raising questions about the influence of his political affiliation on his judicial rulings.
Similarly, Judge Mike Menahan, a district court judge in Montana, had previously held for office as a Democrat and held positions within the party. His history, along with other judges who have transitioned from partisan roles to the judiciary, has raised concerns among critics about the potential for political bias in judicial decision-making.
More than a third of Montana’s district court judges have a history of make political contributions to Democrat candidates and causes.
Concerns Over Judicial Overreach and Partisan Outcomes
The Montana Supreme Court has faced increasing scrutiny over its decisions, with accusations that justices have used their positions to push political agendas rather than strictly interpreting the law. In particular, critics have cited several rulings on controversial issues, including those related to voting rights, as evidence that the court has at times acted outside its constitutional mandate. This perception of judicial overreach has only intensified the debate over whether partisan elections would further compromise the independence of the judiciary.
During the debate on SB 42, Sen. Emrich rejected claims that partisan elections would result in biased decision-making. “The idea that partisan elections will somehow prevent judges from being impartial is a fallacy,” he said, emphasizing that voters deserve to know where candidates stand politically. However, opponents, including Sen. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka, warned that partisan elections could lead to more political influence over judicial decisions, potentially undermining the fairness of the court system.
While some lawmakers, including Gov. Gianforte, support the bill as a way to provide voters with more clarity, others fear it will politicize the judiciary and erode trust in the court system. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Jon Sesso, D-Butte, called the bill “a solution in search of a problem,” arguing that the current system works well and that party labels will only serve to divide the judiciary further.
Meanwhile, supporters of the bill argue that voters have long expressed frustration with the lack of information about judicial candidates. They argue that party labels will give voters a clearer understanding of where candidates stand on important issues and provide greater transparency in the election process.