Support for nonpartisan judicial elections is facing a significant test in Montana, amid a broader national debate surrounding judicial appointments and elections. As the stakes rise, the outcomes of these elections can influence key state laws and societal norms.
Recent court decisions on critical issues such as abortion, voting rights, and climate change have sparked backlash from Republican officials in Montana, prompting efforts to infuse partisanship into the state’s nonpartisan Supreme Court elections. In response, citizen activists have successfully proposed a statewide vote to amend the state constitution, aiming to safeguard the principle of nonpartisan judicial elections.
This November’s election stands out as voters will simultaneously decide on this constitutional amendment while also choosing between two candidates for the Montana Supreme Court. Interestingly, both candidates are officially nonpartisan, yet one is backed by the Republican Party, while the other enjoys support from organized labor and Democratic-aligned groups.
The intensity of the Montana Supreme Court race reflects a rising trend across the approximately two dozen states conducting elections for their highest courts. The financial stakes are considerable, with millions being invested in campaign efforts, underscoring the increasing significance of state judicial offices in contemporary politics.
Last year witnessed an unprecedented spending spree exceeding $100 million on a crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which, despite being officially nonpartisan, helped maintain a narrow liberal control of the court. The ramifications of that control have been palpable, with the liberal majority striking down an abortion ban and redrawing state legislative districts that previously favored Republicans. As a result, the partisan balance remains a pivotal focus in this year’s elections.
While no individual state Supreme Court election is expected to reach the financial heights seen in Wisconsin, the focus on court races is intensifying across several states, with the aim of positioning influential groups for the more critical elections anticipated in 2028.
“State supreme courts are really, really important — increasingly important — arbiters of rights and liberties,” emphasizes Deirdre Schifeling, the chief political and advocacy officer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU has committed to spending $5.5 million this election cycle on Supreme Court races in Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, reflecting their strategic focus on judicial influence.
In Montana, the Supreme Court race features two district court judges, Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson, both currently serving in Flathead County. Eddy narrowly defeated Wilson by fewer than 8,000 votes in a June primary, leading to their rematch in the general election due to their status as the only candidates.
The Montana Supreme Court has made consequential rulings in recent years, striking down restrictive abortion laws and upholding voter registration on Election Day. Notably, Eddy was part of the majority that ruled the state’s abortion laws violated individual privacy rights, spotlighting her role as a key player in these legal battles.
In response to the judiciary’s recent decisions, Republicans, who hold majorities in the state legislature, have introduced multiple bills targeting the judicial system. A new law now permits political parties to financially support judicial candidates, while an attempt to require partisan judicial elections made it through the Senate but ultimately failed in the House. Frustrated by these developments, citizen activists gathered enough signatures to place an amendment on the November ballot, aiming to secure nonpartisan judicial elections as a constitutional mandate. The ACLU’s financial backing of $2.1 million for this campaign illustrates the high stakes involved.
Campaign strategies have been sharply drawn, with the ACLU highlighting Eddy’s support for abortion rights and her decision to reject political party donations. Conversely, Wilson has garnered backing from various Republican committees and has appeared at GOP events, framing his campaign strategically to appeal to party loyalists.
Eddy contends that accepting political donations “undermines the public’s trust that the judicial branch can be impartial,” while Wilson counters that contributions from lawyers pose a greater risk to judicial objectivity, reflecting the complex landscape of campaign financing in judicial elections.
The implications of the Montana Supreme Court race extend beyond state borders, resonating with ongoing judicial contests in other states. For example, Kansas voters recently rejected a Republican proposal to shift from appointed to elected Supreme Court judges, while in North Carolina, the restoration of partisan elections has allowed Republicans to regain control of the court, leading to immediate shifts in policy, including the upholding of a voter ID law and the overturning of previous rulings against partisan redistricting.
As Montana prepares for its pivotal election, the outcomes will have lasting effects on the ideological balance of the court and the direction of state laws. “What happens in this year’s races will determine how likely it is that the ideology of the court flips in 2028,” warns Douglas Keith, deputy director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, highlighting the ongoing relevance of state supreme courts in the broader political landscape.
