Montana’s Judiciary at Risk: Why HB 169 Threatens Fair and Impartial Justice

Subject: Opposition to HB 169 – Violation of Judicial Independence & the Montana Constitution

Dear Members of the House Judiciary Committee,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 169, which seeks to allow judges and judicial candidates to engage in explicit partisan political activities, including endorsing candidates, fundraising for political parties, and holding political leadership positions. This bill fundamentally undermines judicial independence, erodes public trust in the courts, and directly contradicts the Montana Constitution’s principles of separation of powers and judicial impartiality.

HB 169 Conflicts with the Montana Constitution

The Montana Constitution was carefully crafted to ensure that the judicial branch remains independent from political influence, guaranteeing that all Montanans receive fair and impartial rulings. Specifically:

• Article III, Section 1 of the Montana Constitution explicitly mandates the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. By allowing judges to engage in partisan political activities, HB 169 blurs this separation, allowing the judiciary to become entangled with political organizations, which compromises its ability to act as an independent check on the other branches.

• Article VII, Section 8 of the Montana Constitution establishes a Judicial Standards Commission to maintain judicial integrity. This bill contradicts the intent of this provision by allowing judges to actively participate in political campaigns, a move that undermines the judiciary’s ethical obligations and impartiality.

Montana’s founders recognized the critical importance of an independent judiciary, free from the influence of partisan politics. HB 169 would dismantle these safeguards, jeopardizing the fairness of our legal system and opening the door for judicial decisions to be swayed by political affiliations rather than the rule of law.

Ethical Concerns & Political Influence in the Courts

The judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of the law, tasked with upholding justice impartially. HB 169 threatens this impartiality by permitting judges to:

• Seek and use partisan political endorsements.

• Actively campaign for and fundraise on behalf of political parties.

• Publicly declare party allegiance and hold leadership roles in partisan organizations.

Judicial ethics exist precisely to prevent even the appearance of bias in court rulings. If judges are openly affiliated with political parties, how can the public trust that legal decisions are based on law rather than party loyalty?Furthermore, if judges fundraise for a political party or endorse candidates, should they be allowed to hear cases involving those same parties and candidates? These are clear conflicts of interest.

The Separation of Powers: A Foundation for Democracy

The framers of Montana’s government deliberately insulated the judiciary from political influence to ensure its independence from the executive and legislative branches. HB 169 dissolves this crucial barrier, effectively turning judges into political actors beholden to party interests. This shift contradicts the very foundation of a fair and impartial judicial system and raises serious constitutional concerns:

1. How does allowing judges to be active political figures align with the Montana Constitution’s clear separation of powers?

2. Would this bill open the door for special interest groups to influence court rulings by funding judicial campaigns?

3. How will the judiciary maintain legitimacy if the public perceives judges as politicians rather than neutral interpreters of the law?

Judicial Independence: A Shield Against Tyranny

History warns us of the dangers of politicized courts. When judicial systems become extensions of political power rather than independent interpreters of the law, corruption thrives, legal protections erode, and citizens lose faith in their justice system. Judges should be beholden only to the Constitution and the rule of law—not political parties, donors, or ideological movements.

If HB 169 passes, Montana risks taking a dangerous step toward undermining public confidence in the courts and violating the foundational principles of our state constitution. Judges must be guided by legal precedent, not political agendas. Montanans deserve a judiciary that serves justice, not partisanship.

I urge you to reject HB 169 in defense of judicial integrity, public trust, and the constitutional principles that protect our democracy.

Thank you for your time and consideration.