Supreme Court Rules for Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts in Legal Challenge Against Attorney General
The court struck down Austin Knudsen’s rewrite on a ballot initiative mandating nonpartisan judicial elections, but sided with him on a second ballot issue
By Mariah Thomas
The Montana Supreme Court weighed in on two lawsuits filed against Attorney General Austin Knudsen over his legal reviews on a trio of ballot issues aiming to keep Montana’s judicial races nonpartisan.
In a pair of majority opinions released Tuesday, both authored by Justice James Shea, the court sided with Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts’ (MNC) argument regarding Constitutional Initiative 132. But it sided with the attorney general’s finding that another ballot issue brought by the group — Ballot Issue 6 — was legally insufficient.
“We introduced two initiatives to have maximum flexibility working through this process,” said Caitie Butler, a spokesperson with MNC. “So, we’re just really grateful we got a positive ruling on CI-132.”
MNC filed a lawsuit Oct. 17, challenging Knudsen’s rewrite on Constitutional Initiative 132. CI-132, submitted in August by MNC, would create a new section in the state’s constitution mandating all judicial elections to be nonpartisan. Knudsen rewrote the ballot language for CI-132 during the legal review process. He added a line to the initiative that a spokesperson for MNC previously told the Beacon muddied the initiative’s intent.
“A nonpartisan election prohibits labeling candidates on the ballot according to the political party the candidate aligns with including labels like independent,” read the attorney general’s rewrite.
The court, in a 5-2 opinion, sided with MNC, tossing out the AG’s rewrite. Shea wrote that the originally proposed ballot language “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.”
“Making sure we had really clear, unbiased language was our top priority,” Butler said. “And I think it’s telling the Supreme Court gave us back the exact language we had submitted in August.”
That language is as follows: “CI-132, if passed, amends Article VII of the Montana Constitution to create a new Section 12 that mandates all judicial elections be nonpartisan.”
Butler said the Supreme Court now passes its decision on to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then draws up the petition MNC will use to gather signatures. MNC will have a chance to review that petition before it is approved and the group begins collecting signatures.
There is no set timeline for that process, but Butler said MNC anticipates it will be able to start the signature-gathering process to qualify the initiative for the 2026 ballot soon. MNC will have until June 19 to collect and submit signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. Butler said MNC is “excited” about the opportunity to talk with Montanans about nonpartisan courts.
The Supreme Court sided with the attorney general over MNC in a lawsuit regarding a separate ballot issue, Ballot Issue 6. That ballot issue, also submitted by MNC, would both enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state’s constitution and prevent the legislature from creating any new courts unless judges are subject to nonpartisan elections.
Knudsen deemed Ballot Issue 6 legally insufficient to collect signatures, writing that it failed the state’s “separate-vote” principle, which requires ballot initiatives to focus on a single issue. In a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Knudsen’s rejection of the ballot issue.
“We are disappointed the Court ruled to advance a ballot statement with the apparent goal to mislead Montana voters,” Amanda Braynack, the AG’s communications director, wrote in an email to the Beacon Wednesday. “Additionally, the Court contradicted their own judicial code that makes it clear ‘independent’ is another word for office holder, which Attorney General Knudsen paraphrased in his revised statement. Justice (Jim) Rice correctly dissented on the issue.”
Knudsen still faces a third legal challenge over his rewrite to proposed Constitutional Initiative 131. That initiative is separate, but similar, to CI-132.
CI-131 would mandate Montana Supreme Court and district court elections be nonpartisan if passed. Knudsen added the same line to CI-131 as he did to CI-132, triggering a lawsuit from the group that submitted CI-131, Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges. MNC signed onto that lawsuit as well in a show of solidarity, according to Butler. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision in that lawsuit.
“Ultimately, we’re going to move forward with the initiative we introduced, which we think is the best policy because the policy will apply to all elected judges, not just Supreme Court and district court judges,” Butler said.
The efforts to maintain nonpartisan judicial races — long a tradition in Montana — follow on the heels of a legislative session where lawmakers considered several bills aimed at doing the opposite.
GOP desires to attach a party to judges’ names have built in recent years, largely because some district courts and the state’s Supreme Court have struck down several bills passed by the majority-Republican legislature. The GOP has raised concerns about judges having a liberal bias as a result, and argued voters should know judges’ partisan affiliations. But Republican efforts to allow judicial candidates to run under a partisan umbrella failed to pass muster in 2025.
Flathead-area legislator Tom Millett carried House Bill 39, which did pass in the most recent session. That bill now allows political parties to contribute to judicial campaigns.