SB 543 revises Montana election law for a narrow set of judicial races: the offices of chief justice and justice of the Montana Supreme Court. The bill would allow candidates for those offices to identify a political party affiliation on their declaration for nomination, to have that affiliation appear on primary and general election ballots, and to announce party affiliation and campaign endorsements. It also creates a filing fee of $1,750 for those judicial offices.
The bill amends multiple sections of the Montana Code Annotated to carve out these supreme court races from the general rule that nonpartisan judicial candidates may not use party labels. Under the bill, a candidate who does not choose to list a party could be labeled “Nonpartisan,” while a candidate who does list a party would have that affiliation printed on the ballot in no more than three words. The bill applies to primary and general elections for those offices held on or after January 1, 2026.
Impact
If enacted, SB 543 would change the legal treatment of Montana Supreme Court elections from fully nonpartisan ballot presentation to a hybrid system that permits party identification and endorsements for chief justice and justice candidates. It would amend election filing, ballot formatting, and candidate speech restrictions in Title 13, including provisions governing declarations for nomination, ballot design, and the use of party names in campaign materials. The practical effect would be to alter how voters receive information about judicial candidates and to create a specific filing fee for these offices.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generated mixed to negative sentiment in the Senate. It received a favorable committee vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it then failed on second reading in the Senate, with the recorded vote showing 22 yeas and 27 nays before an indefinite postponement vote reversed that result. The final status of the bill is that it died in process, indicating it did not advance to enactment.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether Montana Supreme Court races should remain nonpartisan or be allowed to display party affiliation. Supporters of the bill likely viewed party labels and endorsements as useful voter information, while opponents likely saw the change as undermining the state’s long-standing nonpartisan judicial election structure and potentially politicizing the courts. The bill’s narrow focus on supreme court races, rather than all judicial offices, suggests the debate centered on the balance between transparency to voters and preserving judicial independence.