Bill to Allow Partisan Gifts, Endorsements, Identities for Judges Passes House

The House of Representatives has passed House Bill 169, a bill that would allow judges to attend partisan events, seek or accept partisan endorsements, make speeches, publicly endorse, and publicly self-identify with partisan organizations.

The bill hinges on the approval of House Bill 39, which would attach party labels to candidates for judicial positions. HB 39 has passed the House and is awaiting judgment in the Senate.

Proponents of HB 169, which the House passed on Thursday, Jan. 23, argue it is a realistic move that will allow judges to participate in the larger political conversations in Montana, while opponents say this move will risk judges’ impartiality and erode confidence in the courts.

Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, spoke in opposition to the bill in the House floor meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 22. He argued the bill would take HB 39 even further and raise serious problems with the independence of the judiciary.

“This is a bill that says if that bill passes, all the gloves come off,” Stafman said, “and our judges run as out and out partisans on partisan issues.”

But Rep. Jane Gillette, R-Three Forks, countered this point, saying the notion of a judge’s impartiality is already a false impression.

“The best descriptor I can give of that is that if you had committed a serious crime, think about whether you would want to be in front of a liberal or conservative judge,” Gillette said. “I think we all know the answer to that.”

Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, sponsoring HB 169, agreed with Gillette, saying he believes the judge’s training will protect their fairness in court.

“I have no problem standing in front of a judge who has a D, or an R, or an L, or a G, or an I behind their name,” Millett said. “You know why? Because they’re trained, they’re trained to be impartial.”

Rep. Melody Cunningham, D-Missoula, spoke in opposition to the bill because of her experience as a healthcare provider. She said during her practice, doctors were allowed to accept gifts, dinners, trips and other perks from pharmaceutical companies. But once the community of physicians realized these gifts were swaying them, Cunningham said, they put strict rules in place to make sure their judgement would remain impartial.

“It was thought that our training to make prudent and impartial decisions based on standards of practice, cost-effective treatment, and best practices would protect us from being influenced to choose treatments manufactured by these companies,” Cunningham said. “It turns out that wasn’t true.”