(C) Daily Montanan This story was originally published by Daily Montanan and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Senate Judiciary tables constitutional amendment proposal to have legislature appoint judges – Daily Montanan [1] ['Blair Miller', 'More From Author', '- February'] Date: 2023-02-23 A bill that aimed to refer a constitutional amendment to Montana voters that would have asked whether they wanted to give up their right to vote for judges and hand that power to the legislature was tabled in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. “First of all, the People’s House is not the best representative of voters as long as the voters are still breathing. The voters are,” said Helena resident Paul Pacini, who testified in opposition to Senate Bill 372. If it were passed by the legislature and then by voters, SB372 would have allowed the Montana House of Representatives to appoint judges to the Montana Supreme Court and district courts, who would then be confirmed by the Montana Senate. No proponents testified in favor of the bill, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls. But several opponents – both Montana citizens and lobbyists speaking on behalf of organizations – took issue with both the changing of powers and the bill’s language. In its “whereas” clauses, SB372 says that it is difficult for voters to find information on a judge’s performance and how they interpret the law, leading to “uninformed voting.” It goes on to say that the House is “best representative of the voters of Montana” and the Senate is best representative of the state as a whole and “already equipped” to vet judges because it confirms the governor’s appointments. “I’d love to see the messaging that somehow a partisan legislature is in a better position than the public to make a choice about which judges will be overseeing the protection of their rights in this state,” said Al Smith, on behalf of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association. “I don’t think people would agree with this at all … it sends a bad message that you have little faith in their ability to find the information they need to make a reasoned decision about a judicial candidate.” Nearly everyone who spoke in opposition said the bill took away the rights of voters and undid the separation of powers contained in the Montana and U.S. constitutions. “We have a long, long history of electing our judges. We ask that you trust the people of Montana, that you trust your constituents, and that you continue to allow the people of Montana to elect its judges,” said Sean Slanger, a lobbyist testifying in opposition to the bill on behalf of the Montana Defense Trial Lawyers Association. Pacini was one of several citizens who also questioned why giving the power to appoint judges to the legislature was the correct response to what Emrich’s bill called “uninformed voting.” “If voters do not have enough information on a judge’s performance and how a judge interprets the law, we need only to make that information readily available to voters,” he said. “… In my opinion, it’s a trainwreck waiting to happen.” Emrich said the proposal came from “many years of frustration” from himself and constituents over difficulties finding information about judges. And he said it was “difficult for the average voter” to read through court cases and judge’s decisions. The measure was brought forth in the wake of the contentious Supreme Court Justice race between Justice Ingrid Gustafson, who succeeded in retaining her seat, and GOP-endorsed Public Service Commission President James Brown. Sen. Jen Gross, D-Billings, asked Emrich why no one was at the committee to testify in favor of the bill if he felt confident that Montana voters would support it, to which he replied, “I didn’t ask them to be.” In the vote on the bill, Sens. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, and Bob Brown, R-Thompson Falls, broke with fellow Republicans on the committee and voted against the bill. It failed in a 5-6 vote, and the committee then voted to table the measure. The committee also heard, and tabled, Senate Bill 431 from Sen. Chris Friedel, R-Billings, which would have created a judicial appointment advisory committee composed of Senate Judiciary Committee members, which would recommend Supreme Court and district court judicial appointments to the governor in the event of a vacancy. The 2021 legislature gave the governor the power to fill judicial vacancies, though the judges picked still face the voters during the next election. Friedel said he believed the judiciary committee would be suited to vet potential judges in the interest of the entire state, adding that his proposal would better model the federal government, where the president nominates potential judges and the Senate Judiciary Committee vets them before they go to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. The Governor’s Office opposed SB431, explaining that it already uses local advisory councils that review candidate applications and public comment on the judicial applicants before sending recommendations to the governor. His office said Gov. Greg Gianforte had already appointed five judges through the process. The committee voted the bill down 3-8, with Friedel, Manzella and Emrich voting in favor of the measure. It then indefinitely postponed the bill. [END] --- [1] Url: https://dailymontanan.com/2023/02/23/senate-judiciary-tables-constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-have-legislature-appoint-judges/ Published and (C) by Daily Montanan Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/montanan/