Montana voters will decide in November whether to enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state constitution, while simultaneously choosing between two candidates for the state Supreme Court who are officially running as nonpartisans but are backed by opposing political factions. The election represents a critical test of the state's judicial selection process, which has faced increasing pressure from state legislators seeking to inject partisan labels into the judiciary. The race features Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson, both district court judges from Flathead County, in a rematch following a June primary where Eddy narrowly defeated Wilson.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican officials and conservative groups have sought to increase partisan influence in the judiciary, frustrated by recent court rulings that overturned laws on abortion, voting, and climate change. The Montana GOP and various Republican Party committees have funded Dan Wilson, who spoke at a GOP event earlier this year. Wilson has countered Eddy’s argument about impartiality by pointing to her donations from lawyers, stating, “that’s more dangerous and corrosive to the objectivity of judges.”
Legislative efforts by the Republican-majority Montana Legislature have included a new law effective for this year's election that allows political parties to contribute money to judicial candidates. Although legislation to require explicitly partisan judicial elections passed the Senate, it failed in the House. Republicans argue that making the judiciary more accountable to partisan voters aligns with the outcomes of other states, such as North Carolina and Ohio, where partisan shifts in the courts led to the upholding of voter ID laws and the redrawing of congressional maps in favor of Republicans. Tish Gotell Faulks, state courts director for the Alliance for Justice Action, noted the difficulty of reversing these trends, saying, “It has been a slow process of losing judicial support in those spaces. It will be a slow process to regain it.”
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive groups and Democratic-aligned organizations are campaigning to preserve the nonpartisan nature of the courts, arguing that partisan labels undermine judicial impartiality. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has contributed $2.1 million to the campaign supporting the constitutional amendment and has mailed flyers highlighting Eddy’s stance on abortion rights and her refusal to accept party money. Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer for the ACLU, stated, “State supreme courts are really, really important -- increasingly important -- arbiters of rights and liberties.” The ACLU is spending $5.5 million on Supreme Court races in Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, and spent over $1 million on earlier races in Georgia and Wisconsin.
The Democratic-aligned group Defend Our Courts has backed Eddy, emphasizing her role as a fill-in Supreme Court judge in the majority ruling that the state's abortion laws violated individual privacy rights. Eddy herself has argued that accepting money from political parties “undermines the public’s trust that the judicial branch can be impartial.” Supporters point to recent court decisions in Montana, including rulings that struck down restrictions on abortion and Election Day voter registration, as evidence of the court's independence from legislative pressure.
What the Numbers Show
Spending on state supreme court races has reached record levels nationally. Last year, more than $100 million was spent on a pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which kept liberals in narrow control of that court. While no single seat in Montana is perceived as essential to flipping control of the court this year, the contest remains one of the most intense among the roughly two dozen states holding November elections for their highest courts. In Montana, Eddy edged Wilson by fewer than 8,000 votes out of approximately 270,000 cast in the June primary.
The ACLU’s $5.5 million expenditure in Montana, Michigan, and North Carolina underscores the financial weight of these contests. The Brennan Center for Justice notes that the Montana race will replace a retiring judge who has sometimes been a swing vote. Douglas Keith, deputy director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, stated, “What happens in this year’s races will determine how likely it is that the ideology of the court flips in 2028, when that is in fact at stake.” In Ohio, since requiring partisan labels in 2021, Republicans have expanded a narrow court majority into a dominant one. In Kansas, voters recently defeated a Republican-backed proposal to change how Supreme Court judges are selected.
The Bottom Line
The Montana election is a microcosm of a broader national struggle over the structure of state judiciaries. Interest groups are focusing on these races to position themselves for larger contests in 2028, when control of several state courts may be at stake. The outcome of the constitutional amendment will determine whether Montana maintains its nonpartisan judicial election system or allows for greater partisan involvement in the selection of its top judges. Voters will cast ballots on both the amendment and the judicial seat in November, with the results potentially influencing the legal landscape regarding abortion, voting rights, and environmental regulations in the state for years to come.