As Montanans prepare to vote in the Supreme Court race, the choice between District Judges Dan Wilson and Amy Eddy comes down to fairness and the proper role of a judge.
I’m not a lawyer or a politician, just a citizen with a high school diploma, but I know how the system should work. Trial lawyers will likely write in to discredit this, which wouldn’t surprise me. Judge Eddy frequently rules in their favor, so they naturally want to protect the status quo. But nonpartisan Montanans don’t want a court catering to special interests or politicians in robes.
Judge Eddy’s approach weighs perceived public duties and social outcomes in cases. Former Judge Kitty Curtis recently wrote a letter of support for Eddy, mentioning a long list of current and former judicial social activists, including an unprecedented endorsement from the two most radical sitting Supreme Court justices. Curtis wrote: “The conclusion to be drawn from this wave of judicial endorsements is that the people who know best which Supreme Court candidate deserves your vote are of one mind.” To working Montanans, courtroom insiders teaming up to tell us how to vote (are we stupid?) looks like an old boys’ club protecting its own, not consensus.
In contrast, Judge Dan Wilson is a strictly objective jurist who votes by the book, much like Justice Jim Rice. While some assume Wilson will align with Chief Justice Cory Swanson, Wilson stands alone. Swanson wrote an opinion letter on Trump’s foreign policy to appease partisan supporters; Wilson and Rice would never engage in such political gamesmanship because it shows partisan bias.
Justice Rice set the gold standard when he recused himself from McLaughlin v. Department of Administration. Targeted by a legislative subpoena, he stepped aside to challenge it independently in District Court rather than judge a case involving himself. Though he didn’t vote on the Supreme Court’s final decision, Rice made clear the Legislature overstepped its bounds. No other justice agreed with his position or followed his lead, but Rice proved that process integrity matters more than power. In my seven decades living in Montana, I haven’t seen another jurist share that standard—except Dan Wilson.
Montanans need steady, objective jurisprudence that applies the law equally. Judge Dan Wilson will deliver that standard, and Montana sorely needs another justice in the mold of Jim Rice.
Brad Wright
Kalispell