The candidates competing for two open seats on the Montana Supreme Court met last week to talk about their views of the job. MTPR’s Shaylee Ragar joined Austin Amestoy to break down where they stand.
Austin Amestoy So, Shaylee, you attended two forums last week, one hosted by the Montana Farmers Union and Great Falls, the other hosted by the Gallatin County Bar Association in Bozeman. Who are these candidates?
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Austin Amestoy And what did you learn about Lynch and Swanson during the forums?
Shaylee Ragar 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 some more of that later. But they put their judicial differences in clear terms, too. Swanson says he'd use 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:
Corey Swanson 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 a 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.
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Jeremiah Lynch Pragmatism is what is necessary, because times change; and the authors of both constitutions had aspirational goals. You cannot capture everything in simple language, it's very difficult. But they had aspirational goals.
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Austin Amestoy Okay, so there's definitely some variation to their approaches. Shaylee, we've seen Republicans criticize how the current Montana Supreme Court approaches its work. Did that come up during these forums at all?
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Jeremiah Lynch I believe the Legislature is is attempting to make a power grab, that the court is what's left to protect that.
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Corey Swanson 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.
Austin Amestoy Okay. Let's turn to the other Supreme Court race for an associate justice seat.
Shaylee Ragar Yes. So the candidates in that race are Judge Katherine Bidegaray of Sidney and Judge Dan Wilson of Kalispell.
Austin Amestoy So what did the forums reveal about those two?
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Dan Wilson 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.
Shaylee Ragar Bidegaray 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 rulings past judges have made to interpret the document.
Katherine Bidegaray 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.
Austin Amestoy Shaylee, where did the candidates for associate justice fall on the conflict between the judicial and legislative branches?
Shaylee Ragar Bidegaray talked about it more directly than Wilson. She says judicial independence is vital and that justices must stay above the political fray.
Katherine Bidegaray 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 fair, impartial and not prone to being swayed by external pressures.
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Dan Wilson 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 are, what is the thinking of these justices on these cases and issues as revealed by their questions.
Shaylee Ragar No other candidate was supportive of this idea. They say the Court needs to have the freedom to debate without fear of outside judgment.
Austin Amestoy Anything else we should know?
Shaylee Ragar I think it's worth talking about who's donating to these candidates. Mostly Democratic aligned donors are backing Bidegaray and Lynch, and mostly Republicans are behind Swanson and Wilson.
Austin Amestoy Did the candidates address how those donations might impact their ability to make impartial decisions?
Shaylee Ragar 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.
Austin Amestoy Well, Shaylee, thank you for the highlights.
Shaylee Ragar Thank you, Austin.
Austin Amestoy Election Day is November 5th.
