Prominent voices in Montana’s legal community last week castigated efforts to infuse partisan politics into the state’s independent judiciary.

During the 2025 Montana Legislature, GOP lawmakers introduced 34 bills aimed at reforming what they have repeatedly characterized as an unfair judicial system, including initiatives that would change the way judges are elected, the recension of a ban on political party donations to judicial campaigns and the establishment of a judicial performance commission. Most of the bills failed, but panelists at a conference for the Montana Trial Lawyers Association in Whitefish on Aug. 6 warned that the rush of state legislation was only one aspect of a larger trend. 

“The advocates for this kind of a judiciary have absolutely no appreciation for the Constitution, nor for the duties of a court, nor do they recognize the vulnerability of our court system, nor do they recognize that everything in our governmental system depends upon the courts being separate and apart from every amount of political process that they can possibly avoid,” former Montana Attorney General and Gov. Marc Racicot said.     

Racicot’s criticisms were echoed by fellow former Attorney General and Gov. Steve Bullock, retired Montana Supreme Court Justice Patricia Cotter and Senior U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christenson, all of whom said they have observed a shift in how elected officials talk about and interact with the judicial branch.  

For example, Bullock said state legislators have been reticent to alter language in bills, even when legal council suggests the proposed law may prove unconstitutional. 

“The bill goes forward, and then all of a sudden there’s this outrage. It’s outrage about either how judges are elected or appointed. It’s outrage at that specific judge or it’s outrage at the overall court,” Bullock said. “Never the moment of self-reflection, of saying, ‘I was told this bill, before I even introduced it, had problems.’” 

Cotter echoed Bullock’s assessment, adding that the state court system reviews thousands of cases a year. 

“Probably 2% or 3% at most are these hot-button political issues, and yet those are the cases that capture the public’s attention,” she said. “These are the cases in which legislators are saying, ‘Now look what this court has done.’” 

Christenson, meanwhile, pointed to what he perceived as waning enthusiasm among jurors and recent Senate hearings to confirm federal judges as evidence of increasing politicization of the court system.  

All four panelists called on their fellow lawyers and judges to eschew politics within their own work and oppose colleagues and elected officials that threaten the independence of the judiciary. 

“We have to act like our kids are watching because they are,” Bullock said. “But, even more than that, political leaders, especially lawyer leaders ... we have an obligation, and that obligation at times is to turn down the temperature. We can certainly criticize the [court] decision, but we have to do it in a way that’s never going to undermine an independent branch of government.” 

Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at 406-758-4433 or [email protected]. If you value local journalism, pledge your support at dailyinterlake.com/support.