One seat on Montana’s seven-member Supreme Court is up for election in 2026. Two colleagues are competing for the promotion.
The two district court judges vying for the state’s nonpartisan high court are both from Flathead County.
Judges Dan Wilson and Amy Eddy will both advance to the general election as the top two vote-getters in judicial elections always move forward. It’s Wilson’s second run for the Montana Supreme Court after a loss last cycle. It’s a first attempt for Eddy.
Eddy was first appointed to the bench in 2015. She also oversaw a special court created in 2017 to hear asbestos exposure claims out of Libby. She describes her approach to constitutional law as reserved.
“I believe very strongly in judicial restraint, which is we should not be deciding things we don't have to decide. And so if there’s a way to resolve a dispute without reaching a constitutional question, we should do it that way.”
The vast majority of cases before the Supreme Court are noncontroversial. But rulings that require constitutional interpretation are the most heavily scrutinized, especially by the policymakers who write laws that are challenged.
Eddy says justices need to remain neutral in those political headwinds.
“I believe Montanans are entitled to fair, impartial, nonpartisan justice. They are entitled to justices on the Montana Supreme Court who are not afraid to guard the Montana Constitution, and who will keep politics out of the courtroom.”
Some Montana Republicans call for judges and justices to run under party labels, saying it’s important information for voters. It’s a source of ongoing tension as the GOP accuses Montana courts of having a liberal bias, calling some judges “activists.” But many, including Eddy, say partisanship would erode the judiciary’s integrity.
“The description of an activist court is primarily a pejorative term used by someone who doesn’t like the result. And sometimes there are policy goals of political parties that don’t match up with our constitutional obligations.”
Eddy launched her campaign after the last legislative session ended, just in case a bill passed making judicial elections partisan.
“So we waited so I could announce as an independent and we would have been gathering signatures right now. Because I don’t want to be tied to the political party platform.”
Eddy says she won’t attend any events sponsored by political parties or meet with political leaders. Eddy accepted an endorsement from the Montana Conservation Voters, saying the policy-focused group draws a broad coalition.
Wilson is taking a looser approach.
He was the keynote speaker at the Montana GOP’s winter kickoff in February. The party is making his election a top priority. But Wilson says that doesn’t mean he’s beholden to party leaders.
“This is a nonpartisan race, and the one thing you discover as a judicial candidate quicker than anything else is you don’t pick your supporters, your supporters pick you.”
Campaign finance records have long revealed the political support that nonpartisan candidates draw. Prominent Republicans have donated to Wilson’s campaign and prominent Democrats have donated to Eddy’s.
Wilson, who’s been a judge since 2017, says he’s guided by his judicial philosophy and principles, and if that aligns more with one party than the other, then so be it. He’s also aligned with the GOP on criticism of recent Montana Supreme Court decisions.
“I also have a passion for our Constitution and the rule of the law. And it’s concerning to me to have observed over the last few years what I think have been a departure from what I think are the best norms for our Supreme Court and what I believe is judicial activism.”
Wilson gave an example of a 2024 case. The high court ruled that a longstanding mandatory penalty for multiple DUI convictions was unconstitutional. Wilson says the penalty wasn’t at issue before it reached the Supreme Court, but the Court reviewed it anyway. He says that’s an overreach.
“And the reason that I think that it was improper and it was a radical departure, in my view, from established ways of reviewing cases and established constitutional law, was because the facts and the reasons they had for declaring it constitutional weren’t present in the case.”
Wilson noted the Court overturned that precedent in another case earlier this year, revealing it erred.
Wilson describes himself as a classic constitutional conservative. That philosophy requires judges to apply the Constitution as a static document — not interpreting beyond what’s written or originally intended.
“A judicial constitutional conservative values facts over feelings and principles above all else.”
Wilson and Eddy will appear on Montana’s primary ballot, and the results could reveal who’s gaining more momentum. But this race won’t be decided until November.
