CI-132 won’t remove politics from the courts | Daniel Martinez

After months of paid signature gatherers accosting pedestrians, Constitutional Initiative 132 (CI-132) appears positioned to qualify for the November ballot.

The Democrats and progressive groups who fund the campaign for CI-132 falsely claim that it merely preserves the current system of “nonpartisan” judicial elections for the Montana Supreme Court (the “Court”). There is just one problem: judicial elections — and indeed the Court itself — have been nonpartisan in name only for quite some time.

Through far-fetched interpretations of the state constitution, the Court has struck down numerous common-sense, democratically adopted laws. These include laws preventing minors from undergoing mutilating surgeries, keeping men out of women’s sports and private spaces, and bolstering election integrity. A resolution passed by the Montana Republican Party (“MTGOP”) to oppose CI-132 lays out the extent of the Court’s judicial activism in greater detail.

Democrats’ own actions demonstrate that they do not actually think of judicial elections as nonpartisan. Despite supporting CI-132 in public, Democrats also actively campaign for and collaborate with Amy Eddy, a liberal candidate for Supreme Court Justice.

Public campaign finance reports show that Amy Eddy has spent more than $155,000 on Democrat groups and organizations, including a media consulting group which describes itself as a “communications firm that specializes in winning the toughest campaigns for Democratic political candidates,” as well as a campaign strategy organization that works “with progressive candidates, campaigns and grassroots advocacy causes.”

Furthermore, the ACLU — one of nation’s largest liberal organizations —announced in a press release that it will devote part of its massive $25.5 million campaign fund to supporting Amy Eddy’s campaign. Bragging that it is “one of the biggest spenders in state Supreme Court races,” the ACLU pledged to support Eddy and other liberal judicial candidates who will loosen voter ID laws and expand “abortion access and LGBTQ rights.”

The ACLU, a political organization known for championing liberal causes and its deep ties to the Democratic Party, claims it wants to protect Montana from “politicized judicial selections” while simultaneously directing substantial resources toward judicial candidates that advance its agenda.

The reason for this double standard is simple: support for the Democratic Party has plummeted. Their party label is a liability, not an asset. Democrats are desperate to remove the appearance of politics from judicial elections, while at the same time flooding Montana with massive amounts of money to influence judicial elections.

If CI-132 passes, Democrats will continue to support candidates who hide their liberal politics behind the nonpartisan label.