SB 45 establishes a new Montana Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and creates a formal system for evaluating district court judges and Montana Supreme Court justices. The bill directs the commission to conduct midterm and preelection evaluations, beginning in 2026, using courtroom observation, disciplinary history, public comment, prior evaluations, and a confidential third-party survey of attorneys, jurors, and court staff. The survey is required to ask about legal ability, judicial conduct, administrative performance, and fidelity to the Montana Constitution and state law. Judges may receive a written copy of their survey results and may submit a short written response for inclusion in the report.
The bill also requires the commission to produce midterm and preelection reports, keep them confidential unless a judge files for reelection, and publish public reports and summaries on the internet. For judges on the ballot, the secretary of state must include a summary of the most recent evaluation in a new judicial evaluation information pamphlet that is mailed with absentee materials and distributed to voters statewide. The bill amends election statutes to add this pamphlet to existing voter information materials and sets deadlines for printing and distribution. It also provides rulemaking authority, a transition process for appointing the first commission, a one-time appropriation of $1 million over two fiscal years, and a termination date of June 30, 2035.
In practical terms, the bill would change state law by creating a new administrative body within the Department of Justice for evaluation purposes only, adding new disclosure and reporting requirements for judicial performance information, and amending election law to ensure voters receive judicial evaluation summaries before judicial elections and retention elections. It would affect judges, court staff, attorneys, jurors, the secretary of state, county election officials, and the public by making judicial performance information more structured and more visible in the election process.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is mixed to cautious rather than unanimous support. The bill advanced, but several committee and floor votes were close, including multiple narrow passage votes in both chambers. That pattern suggests meaningful support for the concept of judicial performance evaluation, but also substantial concern about the details, cost, and implementation of the program.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope and design of the commission, the confidentiality and publication rules for evaluations, the use of surveys and public comments, and the added election-related pamphlet requirements. The bill was amended multiple times, including by the governor’s proposed amendments, which indicates ongoing negotiation over how much authority the commission should have, how judges are evaluated, and how the information should be presented to voters. The appropriation and the new administrative structure likely also contributed to debate.
SB 45 would add a new chapter of law governing judicial performance evaluations and would amend Montana election statutes to require a judicial evaluation information pamphlet for voters in judicial elections and retention elections. It creates a new commission, sets out membership, duties, confidentiality rules, reporting obligations, and rulemaking authority, and requires coordination with the secretary of state and county election administrators. The bill also appropriates one-time funding and sunsets the program in 2035.
The bill appears to have been generally supported as a reform measure, but with significant reservations. It moved through both chambers only after multiple amendments and several close votes, indicating that while many lawmakers accepted the idea of judicial evaluations, there was not broad consensus on the final structure. The repeated narrow margins suggest the bill was politically and substantively contested throughout the process.
The most notable disagreements likely centered on whether an independent commission should evaluate judges at all, how the commission should be composed, and how much weight should be given to surveys, public comments, and courtroom observation. Another likely point of contention was the balance between transparency and confidentiality: the bill keeps reports confidential unless a judge files for reelection, but then makes them public and requires inclusion in voter pamphlets. Cost and administrative burden were also likely concerns, given the new commission, staffing, survey contract, pamphlet production, and one-time appropriation.