Allow supreme court justices to use partisan affiliation
Summary
HB838 would change Montana election law to allow candidates for chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court and justice of the Montana Supreme Court to identify a political party affiliation on their declaration for nomination. It also allows those candidates to publicly announce their party affiliation and campaign endorsements, and requires that any stated party affiliation appear on the primary and general election ballots next to the candidate’s name. If a candidate does not list a party affiliation, the ballot would label the candidate as “Nonpartisan.”
The bill amends multiple sections of Title 13 to carve out these judicial offices from the general rule that nonpartisan candidates may not use party designations. It also makes conforming changes to ballot preparation, candidate filing, and retention-election provisions, and includes a $5,000 general fund appropriation to the secretary of state for website updates and election-related programming. The bill applies to primary and general elections for these judicial offices held on or after January 1, 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB838 would alter the legal treatment of Montana Supreme Court judicial elections by creating a specific exception to the state’s nonpartisan judicial election framework. It changes statutes governing declarations for nomination, ballot appearance, use of party names, and nonpartisan ballot preparation so that chief justice and supreme court justice candidates may display party affiliation on ballots and in campaign materials. The bill also directs administrative updates by the secretary of state and election administrators, and it provides a modest appropriation to support those changes.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed but ultimately insufficient support. It cleared the House Judiciary Committee on a 12-8 do pass vote, suggesting meaningful support among committee members, but it later failed on second reading in the House by a 46-53 vote. The final outcome, with the bill dying in process, indicates that while the proposal had a base of support, the broader chamber was not persuaded to adopt the change.
Contention
The central point of contention is the bill’s departure from Montana’s long-standing nonpartisan judicial election model. Supporters likely viewed the measure as increasing transparency by letting voters see a justice candidate’s party affiliation and endorsements, while opponents likely saw it as politicizing the judiciary and weakening the appearance of judicial neutrality. The narrow committee margin and the floor defeat suggest the legislature was divided over whether party labels on Supreme Court races would inform voters or instead undermine the independence of the courts.