Constitutional amendment to change process to select supreme court justices
If enacted, this amendment would have significant implications on the judicial appointment system in Montana, particularly affecting how justices are selected and retained. It emphasizes a gubernatorial appointment process, thereby possibly reducing the direct electoral influence of citizens on the judiciary. This shift is intended to address concerns regarding timely appointments to the Supreme Court, but it raises questions about the balance of power between elected officials and the judiciary.
House Bill 915 proposes an amendment to Article VII, section 8 of the Montana Constitution, aimed at revising the method of selecting justices for the Montana Supreme Court. The bill suggests a process where the governor would appoint replacements for vacancies from a list of nominees, and if the governor fails to make an appointment within thirty days, the chief justice would take over this responsibility. This proposed change seeks to streamline the selection procedure while ensuring that any appointed justices serve until a subsequent election is held to determine their successor.
The sentiment surrounding HB 915 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that the changes would lead to a more efficient and timely selection process for justices, ensuring that vacancies are filled promptly and judicial functions are preserved without undue delay. Conversely, opponents may view this shift as a potential consolidation of power within the executive branch, undermining the public's role in judicial selection and possibly eroding trust in the judiciary.
The central point of contention in discussions around HB 915 likely revolves around the balance of power between the governor's office and the electorate's authority in judicial selections. Critics may contend that the bill allows for excessive executive control over the judiciary, which traditionally thrives on independence from political influence. The bill's failure in a recent vote (23 yeas to 27 nays) suggests significant resistance to altering the established methods of judicial selection.