BOZEMAN — Two candidates made their cases Wednesday for why they’re the best choice to fill an open seat on the Montana Supreme Court.
Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson, both running for an associate justice position, met at Montana State University in Bozeman, for a candidate forum sponsored by the Gallatin County Bar Association.
(Watch the video to see more from Wednesday's forum.)
Eddy and Wilson are both state district judges in the 11th Judicial District, which covers Flathead County. On Wednesday, both said they weren’t interested in drawing contracts with their opponent. However, they did lay out some clear differences in how they’re approaching the campaign.
Eddy said she’s put a strong emphasis on maintaining a nonpartisan aspect to her campaign. She said she’s refusing to speak at political party-sponsored events or to accept campaign contributions from parties – despite the Montana Legislature repealing a law that prohibited parties from contributing to judicial candidates.
“We do not want our judges to be held captive by political parties,” said Eddy. “We do not want our judges swearing loyalty oaths to political party platforms before a judge makes a decision. We don't want them considering whether that will jeopardize a political party endorsement or ongoing political party campaign contributions.”
Wilson was a featured speaker at the Montana Republican Party’s winter kickoff event earlier this year, and he has received contributions from the state GOP.
But while Eddy touted her endorsements from current and former judges and Supreme Court justices and “the legal community up and down,” Wilson said he believed it was inappropriate to ask for support from judges or from attorneys.
“As a judge, you know who those lawyers are who contributed funds to your campaign, and it doesn't need any stretch of the imagination to believe that once they have made that contribution, they might expect something in return,” he said. “That's why I made the decision early on that I wasn’t going to solicit money from attorneys.”
The two candidates answered questions from moderator Missy O’Malley and from members of the audience. The topics included the role of the judicial branch, how it should interact with the other branches of government, and whether the candidates could separate their personal biases from their legal reasoning.
Both judges talked about their legal experience, from their times presenting cases to appellate courts, to the emotionally and legally challenging cases they’ve faced, to their interactions with tribal law.
Wilson said he wants to see more transparency from the Supreme Court. He called for the court to hold more open oral arguments, to give the public and attorneys more chances to see how the appellate process works. He also suggested making the court’s conferences when they discuss a case public – which he said isn’t a popular view, but could help the public better understand how the court works.
“What we don't know is what sort of effort went into the internal debate and sometimes the wrangling among the justices as they try not only to reach a consensus, but to get it right,” Wilson said.
Eddy said the judicial branch will soon be subject to more transparency as the state rolls out its Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. She said the question of making Supreme Court deliberations public was tricky, though she thought there could be a way to open them for review after a period of time.
“The public has a right to know how government decisions are made, but I think we make a mistake when we say that we're going to report one conference, and that is going to be the be all, end all of how a decision was made,” said Eddy.
The winner of this race will succeed Associate Justice Beth Baker, who is retiring at the end of the year. Eddy and Wilson were the only candidates who filed for the position, so both advanced from the June primary automatically. The primary results were extremely close, with Eddy leading Wilson by less than 8,000 votes.
