Letters to the editor Nov. 2

Judicial philosophy

CI-132 proponents’ assert that banning a judicial candidate from running as a Democrat or Republican helps the voters to better know their qualifications. That’s absurd. That’s like telling a man with extremely poor vision, “If you close one eye, you’ll see better.” Party alignment doesn’t provide a perfect line of sight. But it’s a key datapoint. Imperfect, but highly useful.

When it comes to voting for judges and justices, Montana voters do indeed suffer from very poor vision. It is almost impossible for the typical voter to ascertain the true judicial philosophy of candidates.

That’s why Montana’s leftwing legal establishment is wanting to ban party identity from judicial candidates forever. They are having a field day, electing extremely liberal people to the Supreme Court and to many district benches, by flooding these races with trial lawyer money and keeping the voters ignorant of their actual “qualifications and record.” Watch the Dan Wilson (conservative) and Amy Eddy (far left) race if you doubt this dynamic. Eddy has already received over $800,000 through the Montana Trial Lawyers Association. Case closed.

Simply looking at a candidate’s party affiliation guarantees nothing. But probably 90% of the time, a self-identified Republican will have a generally conservative, constitution-based philosophy on the bench, while a person running as a Democrat will likely be a political activist liberal, wanting to expand government at the expense of our liberties. Without this information, red state Montanans end up electing — out of ignorance and radical left funding — the very people who are most opposite to their own values.

Simply allowing partisan affiliation in judicial races that doesn’t stop candidates from running as independents or under some newly-concocted “judicial non-partisan party.” That’s the candidate’s choice. But if CI-132 passes, they will never have a choice. And we will all be the losers for it.

— Roger Koopman, Bozeman