Questions about CI-132 and Montana judicial elections | Kerri Seekins-Crowe

Democrats are well aware of this problem. However, rather than moderate themselves, the Democrats’ solution has been to go on a massive spending spree in a desperate bid to cling to their last bastion of support in Montana: the state Supreme Court.

Judicial elections are and have been nonpartisan in name only; in fact, the Montana Supreme Court itself is not nonpartisan, and the Democrats do not intend it to be. The Court has long behaved as a partisan liberal actor, striking down numerous conservative laws through wildly unfounded and activist interpretations of the Montana Constitution. For these reasons and more, the MTGOP passed a resolution to formally oppose CI-132.

The Court has struck down laws protecting women’s private spaces and sports, blocked bills prohibiting transgender surgeries for minors, and even gone so far as to void laws meant to bring increased clarity and transparency to judicial elections. This last decision undermines the separation of powers that is the bedrock of our limited government system of checks and balances.

This year, activist Amy Eddy is running to be on the Montana Supreme Court. Though liberals are desperate to convince voters that judicial elections are not partisan, Eddy’s affiliations and expenditures tell a very different story.

Since beginning her campaign, Eddy has spent more than $155,000 on Democrat groups and organizations. She spent $50,000 on a Democrat political consulting firm, as well as an additional $61,000 on a media consultant group which describes itself as a “communications firm that specializes in winning the toughest campaigns for Democratic political candidates.” Eddy has also spent more than $10,000 on a campaign strategy organization that works for “progressive candidates, campaigns and grassroots advocacy causes.”

Ironically, the same unpopular party helping to run a liberal Supreme Court candidate’s campaign is also pushing to keep partisan labels off judicial election ballots. Clearly, the status quo for judicial elections in Montana is not, as advocates of CI-132 claim, nonpartisan. Rather, the partisan politics of the Supreme Court are obscured and hidden from voters.

Rather than intentionally obscuring the politics of judicial elections, why not be open and honest with the voters and let them make their own decisions? Republicans believe that judicial elections should be reformed to allow candidates to run with a political designation if they choose, giving voters the knowledge they need to make an informed decision.

This November, vote to end the liberal activism of our Supreme Court. Vote NO on activist Amy Eddy, and vote NO on CI-132.