If you think judicial races are sleepy legal affairs where quiet judges recite case law, you haven't been paying attention to Big Sky Country. For decades, Montana has officially chosen its Supreme Court justices without party labels. That tradition is currently facing its toughest stress test yet.
Voters across the state are heading to the polls to decide whether to enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections directly into the state constitution via Constitutional Initiative 132 (CI-132). Meanwhile, a high-stakes open race between two district court judges—Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson—is playing out against a backdrop of aggressive political spending, ideological fault lines, and bitter legislative clashes over how the bench should look.
Let's look at what's really happening on the ground and why this fight matters far beyond Montana's borders.
The Push to End Nonpartisan Tradition
Montana has held nonpartisan judicial elections since 1936. For nearly ninety years, the system was governed by state statute rather than constitutional mandate. But that design left an opening for the state legislature. Further insights regarding the matter are covered by NBC News.
Frustrated by high-profile rulings on abortion access, transgender rights, and environmental regulations, the state's Republican legislative majority and leadership pushed to inject party labels back into judicial selection. Lawmakers even passed laws allowing direct financial contributions from political parties to judicial candidates.
That legislative pushback triggered a counter-offensive. A coalition named Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts organized to put CI-132 on the ballot, raising more than $3 million to protect the separation of politics from the judiciary. A 2023 Montana State University study showed that 72 percent of residents oppose partisan Supreme Court elections, while 89 percent believe the judiciary should remain independent. Even so, the conservative push to remake the court is stronger and better-funded than ever.
Inside the 2026 High Court Showdown
The immediate flashpoint for this philosophical war is the race for the seat of retiring Justice Beth Baker, who has served as a pivotal swing vote on the seven-member bench.
In the June primary, Flathead County District Court Judge Amy Eddy edged out fellow Flathead County District Court Judge Dan Wilson, pulling 51.4 percent of the vote to Wilson's 48.6 percent. Both candidates are running as nonpartisan figures on paper, but their political alignments are an open secret.
Wilson has positioned himself squarely on the conservative wing, notably delivering the keynote speech at the Montana Republican Party's winter gathering. Eddy, on the other hand, has picked up endorsements from left-leaning groups like Montana Conservation Voters and various labor organizations. When Eddy briefly filled a temporary vacancy on the state supreme court prior to the election cycle, she joined a ruling that struck down several state abortion restrictions as unconstitutional.
These ideological differences aren't academic. When major rulings on civil rights and constitutional challenges come down 5–2 or 4–3, every single vote dictates state policy for millions of residents.
The Broader National Trend
Montana isn't fighting this battle in a vacuum. Across the United States, state supreme court elections have morphed from quiet legal contests into multi-million-dollar proxy wars.
Data from the Brennan Center for Justice shows that national spending on state high court races hit record highs during recent cycles, fueled heavily by interest groups clashing over reproductive freedom and executive power. Outside spending has frequently outpaced candidate fundraising, turning judicial robes into prime targets for political action committees on both sides of the aisle.
When state supreme courts become de facto super-legislatures, the pressure to control them explodes. If conservative candidates manage to capture seats in upcoming election cycles, the ideological balance of courts in states like Montana and North Carolina could flip entirely for a decade or more.
What Happens Next
The vote on CI-132 will settle the constitutional question once and for all, locking nonpartisan rules into place or leaving the door wide open for future legislative meddling. At the same time, the showdown between Eddy and Wilson sets up a high-stakes battle for the soul of the bench, directly influencing whether the court leans toward individual rights protections or a more conservative judicial philosophy.
Check your local sample ballot, research the judicial candidates beyond their surface-level labels, and pay attention to how your state funds and structures its courts. Judicial independence doesn't defend itself.
