Generally revise criminal law Prohibiting judges from seeking, accepting, or using political party endorsement
Summary
HB 224 would prohibit a judge or judicial candidate from knowingly seeking, accepting, using, advertising, promoting, or otherwise benefiting from a contribution or endorsement from a political party. The bill is aimed at judicial elections and judicial conduct, and it would bar party involvement in a candidate’s campaign support or public promotion when that support comes from a political party.
The bill states that the new prohibition would be codified in Title 13, chapter 35, part 2, meaning it would be integrated into Montana’s election-related statutory framework. As written, it would apply to both sitting judges and judicial candidates, and it would make the restriction part of the laws governing campaign practices and political activity in judicial races.
Impact
HB 224 would change Montana law by adding a specific restriction on judicial candidates and judges regarding political party contributions and endorsements. It would not appear to create a new office or election process, but instead would regulate campaign conduct and the use of party support in judicial elections. By tying the provision to Title 13, chapter 35, part 2, the bill would place enforcement and interpretation within the state’s existing election-law structure.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill did not advance, as it was tabled in the House State Administration Committee by a 19-0 vote and later recorded as having died in process. That outcome indicates little formal support in committee, even though the vote itself was unanimous on the procedural motion. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show broader support or opposition beyond the final disposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between judicial impartiality and political participation. Supporters would likely view the bill as a safeguard against partisan influence in the judiciary, while opponents may have been concerned that it restricts judicial candidates’ ability to participate in ordinary campaign activity or limits access to endorsements and support. Because the bill was tabled without recorded debate, the specific arguments for and against it are not documented in the provided materials.
Establishes bribery in official and political matters applies to person soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept benefit as consideration to act even though not yet in office or otherwise qualified to act.