10/05/2026
VOTER INFORMATION By Cynthia Marble
When it comes to voting for judges, bear in mind non-partisan does not mean impartial. Look at the US Supreme Court. There are justices who interpret the law according to their left-leaning philosophy (Progressives) and then there are those who interpret the Constitution as written (Constitutionalists). Look at the Montana Supreme Court. They’ve ruled against a ban on men in women’s sports, and in Kalarchik v. State of Montana, they ruled 5–2 to prevent the state from enforcing a male or female definition of s*x on official documents. Justice Laurie McKinnon stated that "transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, s*x discrimination." This unwillingness to define s*x as determined by our biological cells (XX or XY) is a clear indication that these justices’ progressive political leanings effectuated this outcome.
Now we have the introduction of CI-132, an effort funded by thousands of left-wing, out-of-state dollars, making the claim that in order to keep politics out of our courts, we should include in our State Constitution that judges cannot run as Republicans or Democrats. Though the idea of impartial, nonpolitical courts appeals to everyone, currently there are issues where a judge’s philosophy, rather than impartiality, must determine their decision. For example, in the issue of men in women’s sports, a judge either believes that biology is the determining factor of one’s s*x, or it isn’t. What makes more sense (and the truth of what is actually happening) is to understand judges as those who will interpret law as Constitutionalists or as Progressives. CI-132, rather than being a protective measure for impartiality in our courts, provides an assurance that candidates’ judicial philosophies will be shrouded from the voters--the very information that will aid voters in making informed choices at the ballot box. It does nothing to promote impartiality.
CI-133 is another effort funded by left wing, out-of-state money. It seeks to change the Montana Constitution by removing requirements on ballot initiatives, loosening the guidelines to make changing our State Constitution easier. This gives those paying the signature gatherers (think Big Progressive $$) more power to initiate deceptive ballot measures that sound good on the surface but are ultimately meant to circumvent our elected representatives, who in Montana are majority Republicans. It eliminates debate and thus the clarification of issues, reducing them to under-explored matters, over-simplified to veil deception.
1-194 claims to remove out-of-state corporate money from Montana elections, while the measure itself is funded by left wing out-of-state dollars. That should tell you all you need to know, along with who is promoting it: Pete Buttigieg, AOC, and Jon Tester. It instead hamstrings Montana businesses and associations from participating in elections while giving the green light to out-of-state, dark money. It is opposed by the Montana Chamber of Commerce.
The rest of the story? Seth Bodner, candidate for US Senate, is NOT an Independent. He is a Democrat. Check his record at U of M. Montana Supreme Court candidate Amy Eddy is a Progressive. Judge Dan Wison is a Constitutionalist. Please, show up, be informed and vote.
Send a message to learn more
