MontanaProposal would put party labels on Montana judicial ballots
The proposal would put party labels on state Supreme Court and district court ballots, while justices of the peace would remain on nonpartisan ballots.
What it does
Supreme Court justices and district court judges would run with party labels. If an incumbent is the only candidate, voters would decide whether to keep that judge in office.
Judicial candidates could accept party endorsements. The proposal would repeal a section described as banning party contributions, but its text conflicts about whether that restriction still applies to justices of the peace.
Argument forParty labels could give voters another way to compare Supreme Court and district court candidates, including unopposed incumbents.
Argument againstParty labels could lead some voters to weigh party ties more heavily than a judicial candidate’s experience or decisions.
More detail
Supreme Court justices and district court judges would run in partisan elections. This covers state Supreme Court justices and district court judges; the text keeps justices of the peace on a nonpartisan ballot. An incumbent who is the only candidate would appear on the general ballot in a yes-or-no vote on staying in office. The proposal would apply to judicial elections held on or after its effective date; the text does not give that date.
Judicial candidates could accept endorsements from political parties, and the proposal would repeal a section described as barring party contributions to judicial candidates. This concerns judicial candidates, including the text’s separate reference to justices of the peace. The bill also says the contribution restriction applies to justices of the peace, while repealing the section that contains that restriction; the effect of this conflict is unclear. The proposal would apply to judicial elections held on or after its effective date; the text does not give that date.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Died
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2025
- May 23(S) Died in ProcessDied
- Apr 1(H) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Concur. Result: fail.Lower
- Apr 1(H) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Mar 31(H) Committee Report - (H) Judiciary
- Vote recorded be_concurred_in_as_amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 31(H) Committee Executive Action - (H) Judiciary
- Mar 29(H) Rereferred to Committee - (H) JudiciaryMinor
- Mar 29(H) Committee Report - (H) Judiciary
- Mar 28(H) Committee Executive Action - (H) Judiciary
- Vote recorded be_concurred_in_as_amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 24(H) Hearing - (H) Judiciary
- Feb 28(H) 1st Reading
- Feb 28(H) Referred to Committee - (H) JudiciaryMinor
- Feb 27(S) Transmitted to House
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 27(S) 3rd Reading
- Feb 27(S) Scheduled for 3rd ReadingMinor
- Feb 26(S) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 26(S) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Feb 3(S) Committee Report - (S) Judiciary
- Vote recorded do_pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 3(S) Committee Executive Action - (S) Judiciary
- Jan 15(S) Hearing - (S) Judiciary
- Jan 12(S) Hearing Canceled - (S) Judiciary
- Jan 8(S) Referred to Committee - (S) JudiciaryMinor
- Jan 6(S) 1st Reading
- 2024
- Dec 18(S) Introduced
- Dec 12(LC) Draft Delivered to Requester
- Dec 10(LC) Draft Ready for Delivery
- Dec 9(LC) Draft in Assembly
- Dec 8(LC) Draft in Final Drafter Review
- Dec 7(LC) Draft in Input/Proofing
- Dec 6(LC) Draft in Edit
- Dec 6(LC) Draft in Legal Review
- Nov 16(LC) Drafter AssignedIntroduced
Government & EthicsCivil Rights & Voting