CI-132: impartiality of judges

by Dr. Marc L. Sabin, ScD, Corvallis

The proponents and opponents of nonpartisan judicial elections agree on one important principle: judges should be judged on their record and qualifications, not politics. I agree.

The problem is that Montana voters have remarkably little objective information about a judge’s record. We hear and see what candidates tell us during a campaign and can observe their public statements, but there is no comprehensive, independent evaluation system. CI-132 does not address that issue. Therefore it should be rejected.

Colorado, however,  provides a useful model. Its Judicial Performance Evaluation system gathers information from attorneys, litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel and others who have interacted with judges. The information is then made available to voters through the state’s judicial-performance system and the Colorado Judicial Institute’s “KnowYourJudge.com” resource.

That is the kind of information Montana voters need.

With respect to the current election contest for a seat on the MT Supreme Court, Judge Amy Eddy’s campaign raises a legitimate question about judicial philosophy. She has accepted campaign support from the very left-leaning ACLU while presenting herself as open-minded and nonpartisan. More importantly, her own reported statements about Montana’s constitutional environmental protections provide more insight into how she might approach future cases.

Eddy has described Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment as a “fundamental and foundational” right, rather than “just a policy preference,” and has said courts should enforce that right when necessary. Consider, that the next review of the MT Constitution is only 4 years away

Eddy’s position is significant in light of Held v. State, the Montana Supreme Court’s climate-change decision. Eddy was not on the Court when Held was decided, so we cannot know how she would have voted. But her stated view of Article IX and her prior willingness to require stronger environmental review by state agencies indicate the activist judicial approach she may bring to the Supreme Court.

That is precisely the kind of information voters should have before deciding to elect a judge as we will do on November 3. The issue is whether her record and stated constitutional philosophy are consistent with the kind of judge a voter wants and needs on the Montana Supreme Court. 

I recommend Dan Wilson who is an excellent Jurist, is not afraid of letting people know he is a constitutional conservative, and because he makes decisions based on the law and the Constitutions of MT and the USA. Further, he has no ties to the ACLU. I recommend you vote for Dan Wilson.