Montana Voters to Decide Fate of Nonpartisan Judicial Elections Amid National Battle

Montana voters will decide in November whether to enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state constitution, a vote that comes as nonpartisan judicial elections face increasing challenges nationwide. The outcome in Montana is part of a broader trend where state supreme court races, once largely overlooked, are becoming significant battlegrounds for consequential state laws.

This year's election in Montana features a statewide vote on an amendment to mandate nonpartisan judicial elections. Simultaneously, voters will choose between two officially nonpartisan candidates for the state Supreme Court: one with backing from the Republican Party, and the other supported by organized labor and a Democratic-aligned group. This situation reflects a national effort by Republican officials in several states to introduce more partisanship into judicial elections after recent court rulings on issues such as abortion, voting rights, and climate change have displeased the party.

The contest in Montana is among the most intense of the approximately two dozen state Supreme Court elections scheduled for November. Millions of dollars are being spent, continuing a trend that underscores the growing importance of these high court positions. In 2023, a record over $100 million was spent on a Wisconsin Supreme Court race. While officially nonpartisan, that election resulted in liberals narrowly controlling the court, which subsequently struck down an abortion ban and overturned Republican-advantageous state legislative districts.

No single state Supreme Court contest this year is expected to reach the spending levels seen in Wisconsin, as no single seat is perceived to be as critical for party control. However, interest groups are focusing on these races to position themselves for future elections, particularly in 2028. Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated that state supreme courts are increasingly crucial arbiters of rights and liberties. The ACLU is investing $5.5 million in Supreme Court races in Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, in addition to over $1 million spent earlier this year in Georgia and Wisconsin.

In Montana, the Supreme Court race pits district court judges Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson against each other for a second time. They advanced to the general election after Eddy narrowly won a June primary. The Montana Supreme Court has recently issued significant rulings, including striking down laws that restricted abortion and limited voter registration, and upholding a landmark decision that the state was violating residents' constitutional rights to a clean environment by permitting fossil fuel projects without considering global warming. Eddy was part of the majority that ruled state abortion laws violated individual privacy rights.

In response to rulings perceived as unfavorable, Montana Republicans, who hold legislative majorities, have proposed and enacted legislation impacting the judiciary. A new law permits political parties to contribute to judicial candidates, though a bill to mandate partisan judicial elections failed to pass the House. Citizen activists, in turn, gathered signatures for the ballot amendment to constitutionally protect nonpartisan judicial elections. The ACLU has contributed $2.1 million to this effort.

Campaigns are actively supporting candidates. The ACLU has promoted Eddy, highlighting her support for abortion rights and her refusal to accept money from political parties. The Democratic-aligned group Defend Our Courts also backs Eddy. Wilson, meanwhile, has received funding from Republican Party committees and attended a GOP event. Eddy argues that accepting party funding undermines judicial impartiality, while Wilson contends that donations from lawyers are more detrimental to judicial objectivity.

Similar battles over judicial elections have occurred in other states. In Kansas, voters overwhelmingly rejected a Republican-backed proposal to shift from appointed to elected Supreme Court judges. In North Carolina, a law restoring partisan judicial elections in 2018 allowed Republicans to regain control of the court in 2022, leading to subsequent reversals of previous rulings on issues like voter ID laws and redistricting maps. Ohio also moved to partisan labels for Supreme Court judges on ballots in 2021, after which Republicans expanded their court majority. Progressive groups like Alliance for Justice Action continue to target these courts, aiming for future shifts in control.

This year's races, including Montana's contest to replace a retiring swing vote judge, will influence the ideological balance of state supreme courts for years to come. Douglas Keith, deputy director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the outcomes of this year's elections will determine the likelihood of ideological flips on these courts, particularly in anticipation of 2028.