CI-132Constitutional amendment · Citizen initiative
Keep judicial elections nonpartisan
Explain it like I'm 5
Montana judges already run without party labels. This would write that rule into the Constitution, like putting a playground rule in permanent ink.
Yes vote
Montana’s Constitution would require all judicial elections to remain nonpartisan.
No vote
Current nonpartisan elections would continue under state law, but lawmakers could change that rule later.
The question to ask yourself
Should nonpartisan judicial elections be protected in the Constitution, or should lawmakers retain flexibility to change the system?
The case for
- Protects judicial elections from future partisan changes by the Legislature.
- Supporters say judges should be evaluated on qualifications and law, not party loyalty.
- Preserves Montana’s longstanding nonpartisan judicial-election system.
Backed by: Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts, Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges, retired Montana Supreme Court justices
The case against
- Party labels could give voters useful information about candidates’ legal and political views.
- Constitutionalizing the rule reduces flexibility to change the election system later.
- Nonpartisan labels do not prevent political groups from supporting judicial candidates.
Opposed by: Montana Republican Party, Montana Family Foundation
- Money
- No direct tax or state-cost estimate was stated in the sources reviewed.
- Don't be misled
- A claim that CI-132 would create nonpartisan judicial elections for the first time is misleading because Montana already holds them that way under state law.