Nonpartisan judicial elections
Two competing constitutional initiatives have been proposed for Montana's 2026 ballot regarding judicial elections. CI-132, submitted by Monica Paoli and Megan Simpson, has qualified for the 2026 General Election ballot and would require Montana Supreme Court and district court elections to remain nonpartisan. A separate initiative, CI-131, would also mandate nonpartisan judicial elections. The debate centers on whether party labels on judicial ballots compromise the independence of the courts.
Where do you stand?
Should Montana require that Supreme Court and district court elections remain nonpartisan?
How important is this to you?
✓ You told us where you stand
Sources
Monica Paoli & Megan Simpson — https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/proposed-2026-ballot-issues
CI-132: A constitutional initiative that amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan. Status: Qualified for 2026 General Election ballot (8/17/2026).
Ted Dick — https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/proposed-2026-ballot-issues
CI-131: A constitutional initiative that, if passed, mandates Montana supreme court and district court elections be non-partisan. A non-partisan election prohibits labeling candidates on the ballot according to the political party the candidate aligns with.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
- Strongly support nonpartisan judicial elections; party labels undermine judicial independence and impartiality.
- Support keeping judicial elections nonpartisan, as courts should be insulated from partisan political pressures.
- Allow voluntary party affiliation disclosure but do not require partisan or nonpartisan labels on judicial ballots.
- Oppose mandating nonpartisan elections; voters deserve to know a judge's party affiliation when casting ballots.
- Strongly oppose; partisan judicial elections increase accountability and transparency to the electorate.