Montana News
Montana Supreme Court candidates lay out their views during candidate forums
With Montana News, I'm Eleanor Smith. The candidates competing for two open seats on the Montana Supreme Court met last week to debate their views of the job. While judicial candidates for nonpartisan seats are more tight-lipped than those running for political office, they found ways to distinguish themselves. MTPR's Shaley Rager joined Austin Amistoy to break down where they stand. So Shaley, you attended two forums last week, one hosted by the Montana Farmers Union in Great Falls, the other hosted by the Gallatin County Bar Association in Boseman. Who are these candidates? Let's start with the race for Chief Supreme Court Justice, county attorney Corey Swanson of Townsend and former federal magistrate Judge Jerry Lynch of Missoula are competing for that job, which is an administrative role over the court in addition to regular justice duties. And what did you learn about Lynch and Swanson during the forums? These two traded a fair amount of barbs during their debates. Lynch says that Swanson doesn't have enough experience to be a justice because he's never been a judge before. Swanson says it's important for the court to have a diversity of backgrounds and says Lynch has a bias towards the state legislature. I'll get to more of that later, but they put their judicial differences in clear terms too. Swanson says he'd used a textualist approach, which means interpreting the law based on the plain meaning of the words in the documents. Textualism typically disregards the author's intent or real world outcomes. Further, Swanson said. "You should be deciding cases narrowly based on the facts that are actually in the law that's actually in dispute between that case. Drafting and narrow holding will do a couple of things for you. Number one, it will give you the clearest legal ruling to resolve the dispute of the parties that are before you. Secondly, it will give you the clearest precedent that you can write going forward." Lynch says he'd be a pragmatist Supreme Court justice. That approach requires considering real world outcomes. Each competing interpretation of a law might produce. Pragmatism is what is necessary because fines change and the authors of both constitutions have aspirational goals. Lynch pointed to new technology like cell phones or automatic weapons that didn't exist when the framers wrote the constitution, but these things are now regulated by law. He also made several references to the state's right to privacy and said he would be compelled to uphold a precedent that protects abortion access. OK, so there's definitely some variation to their approaches. Shaley, we've seen Republicans criticize how the current Montana Supreme Court approaches its work. Did that come up during these forums at all? It did. Right. So Republican lawmakers have accused the current court of bias against conservative policies. Justices have said they're doing their job and are not biased. However, lawmakers say they need to have more oversight over the judicial branch. Lynch says he'll go toe to toe with lawmakers to protect the branch's independence. He criticized Swanson for not making the same promise. I believe the legislature is attempting to make a hologram that the court is what's left to protect them. Swanson says he has disagreed with some of the court's rulings in the past, and that justices have to be careful not to overstep. Judge Lynch has been criticizing the legislature for an entire year, and I understand that there's, he's got things, he's concerned with things they did back in 2021. I'm concerned about things that are going to happen in 2025. I want to know that we have an impartial Supreme Court to deal with whatever those new disputes are going to be. OK, let's turn to the other Supreme Court race for an associate justice seat. Yes. So the candidates in that race are Judge Catherine Bitter Gary of Sydney and Judge Dan Wilson of Kalispell. So what did the forums reveal about those two? One of their differences is in how they describe the Montana Constitution. Wilson said he doesn't have an opinion of what's contained in the document, whether it's liberal or conservative, good or bad. He said he deeply respects the process elected delegates used to build the Constitution in 1972. My philosophy for interpreting the Montana Constitution is that we look to its original intent, and if it's not plain from the words itself, then we go back foremost to the history of the delegation that debated it. Bitter Gary called the state's Bill of Rights a beautiful document. That's the envy of other states. She emphasized that it gives Montanans additional rights on top of those afforded by the federal Constitution, like the right to a healthful environment and the right to privacy. She said she starts with ruling's past judges have made to interpret the document. The Montana Constitution and the established precedent interpreting that document are what govern. I look at precedent more than I look at anything else. I look at the facts that have been raised before me, the legal arguments that have been made. Shailie, where did the candidates for Associate Justice fall on the conflict between the judicial and legislative branches? Bitter Gary talked about it more directly than Wilson. She says judicial independence is vital and that justices must stay above the political fray. During times when there are efforts to politicize the court and attack it and undermine the public's confidence in it, the people who serve on the Montana Supreme Court are very impartial and not prone to being swayed by external pressures. Wilson says that conflicts between the three branches of government are natural and he didn't weigh in on who's right or wrong. He said impartiality is paramount to the job and he did offer a suggestion for improving the court. He said the court could be more transparent and build trust by opening up their Tuesday conference meetings to the public where they debate how to rule on a case. The public can gain a tremendous insight into the inner workings of the court. When the court holds its oral arguments on cases, the lawyers have a better chance to understand what they need to do to persuade the court, but more importantly, the public and the press could follow. What is the thinking of these justices on these cases and issues as revealed by their questions? Another candidate was supportive of this idea. They say the court needs to have the freedom to debate without fear of outside judgment. Anything else we should know? I think it's worth talking about who's donating to these candidates. Mostly Democratic aligned donors are backing Bitagary and Lynch and mostly Republicans are behind Swanson and Wilson. Did the candidates address how those donations might impact their ability to make impartial decisions? All four candidates say they can't control who donates or supports them. They say that as justices, it would be their job to put their personal beliefs aside and narrowly interpret the law. They say they won't be beholden to outside pressure. Well, Shanley, thank you for the highlights. Thank you, Austin. Election Day is November 5th. You can find more information about the Supreme Court candidates and other candidates for statewide office on our voter guide at mtpr.org.