Montana Supreme Court Splits Rulings on Nonpartisan Judicial Ballot Measures

The Montana Supreme Court issued rulings on Tuesday on constitutional ballot proposals seeking to keep the state’s judicial elections nonpartisan.

Montana’s highest court ruled that Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts’ (MNC) CI-132 ballot proposal statement seeking to keep judicial races nonpartisan was legally sufficient.

In the second ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected the group’s other ballot proposal, which sought to keep judicial races nonpartisan while requiring any new courts created in Montana to be selected on a nonpartisan basis.

In October, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen approved CI-132 to start gathering signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot; however, he revised its proposed ballot statement.

MNC’s original proposed ballot statement said that “CI-[132] amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.”

Knudsen changed the proposed statement to “CI-[132], if passed, amends Article VII of the Montana Constitution to create a new Section 12 that mandates all judicial elections be nonpartisan. A nonpartisan election prohibits labeling candidates on the ballot according to the political party the candidate aligns with including labels like independent.”

The attorney general found that the original proposed ballot statement did not “contain a true reflection of the current text of the Montana Constitution,” the ruling stated.

MNC petitioned the state Supreme Court to allow the group to continue to use its original proposed ballot statement. The group argued Knudsen’s first sentence “obscures the context that judicial elections are currently nonpartisan in Montana and that the word ‘mandates’ is pejorative.”

For the second sentence, MNC alleged it “attempts to define ‘nonpartisan,’ which needs no definition, and does so in a confusing and misleading way.”

The state Supreme Court ruled that Knudsen’s first sentence was “misleading” due to how it “implies the requirement that judicial elections in Montana be nonpartisan would change the status quo. Judicial offices are currently nonpartisan elections by statute.”

The Montana Supreme Court also stated the attorney general’s second sentence “would mislead voters and prevent them from casting an intelligent and informed ballot.”

Regarding MNC’s original proposed ballot statement, the state Supreme Court said it “provides a true and impartial explanation of CI-132 in plain, easily understood language that is neither argumentative nor written so as to create prejudice for or against the initiative.”

The ruling certified the MNC’s original proposed ballot statement with the Montana Secretary of State’s Office.

Last month, Knudsen said MNC’s other ballot proposal, Ballot Issue #6, was legally insufficient. The attorney general argued that this ballot proposal was not “legally sufficient because it violates the separate-vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution.”

The separate-vote requirement in the Montana Constitution says “if more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be so prepared and distinguished that it can be voted upon separately.”

The Montana Supreme Court said this requirement “serves as an important check on the initiative process, confirming the integrity of the vote and ensuring the voters actually approve of a particular amendment.”

According to the ruling, Knudsen found Ballot Issue #6 to violate the requirement because it contains “two distinct questions.” MNC argued its ballot proposal met the requirement.

Montana’s highest court stated that Ballot Issue #6 was not “legally sufficient” because the court “is obligated to ensure the voters have the opportunity to cast separate votes for separate amendments without encumbering the people’s right to amend the Constitution.”

As a group, MNC is being supported by left-leaning organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Montana, Forward Montana, Big Sky 55+, Catalyst Montana and Montana Federation of Public Employees.