Judicial races should not escape judgment

In most cases, we would be cheering on Montana Attorney General Tim Fox in asserting the state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, and we would take issue with rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

But not in the case of Fox v. Sanders County Republican Central Committee. The attorney general has petitioned before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend state statutes that have existed since 1935 to prohibit political party endorsements and expenditures in nonpartisan judicial elections.

During the 2012 election cycle, Montana District Judge Charles Lovell upheld state law in a complaint brought by the Sanders County Republican Central Committee, which had sought to “promote the election of candidates to public office who share its ideological views.” The plaintiffs added that given “the increasing intrusions by left-leaning state judges into areas of policy traditionally reserved to the Legislature, SCRCC desires to endorse judicial candidates.”

Lovell cited the necessity of state law to maintain “an independent and fair judiciary.”

A majority of the Ninth Circuit disagreed, but a dissenting justice lamented that judicial elections are well, different, and they need to be sheltered from political influence.

That all may sound high-minded and well-intended, but the rub here is that political speech is — and should be — protected. Think about it: Nonpartisan judicial elections are still political elections, putting people into official public offices that have over time become highly influential in guiding or setting public policy.

The notion of banning a political party, which is made up of voting citizens, from weighing in on any election is indeed a “facially unconstitutional” violation of the First Amendment. The state can have nonpartisan judicial elections, where candidates do not commit themselves to a political party, but it should not be able to silence a political party, preventing it from having any influence on incredibly important elections.

And unfortunately, these important judicial elections are too often regarded as the most obscure races on a ballot. The reason why? Because most voters don’t really know much about the candidates, what their real world views are, and how they might be inclined to view issues that come before them.

That’s because, especially in non-partisan races, judicial candidates frequently duck questions about those kinds of things. Take it from us, judicial candidates can be maddeningly evasive in interviews.

That’s all the more reason for a political party to be able to shine light on candidates. If a party, Republican or Democrat, has every reason to believe a candidate will rule against the principles and policy pursuits of the party, then they should be able to engage in that judicial race. They certainly shouldn’t be silenced.

This does not harm voters in any fashion, but rather gives them more information on which to base their decisions. If Republicans publicly support one candidate, then Democratic voters just might want to support the candidate the GOP is against.

And back to the “nonpartisan” nature of these races: If the candidates are subject to political party scrutiny, might the races be more likely to attract candidates that truly have impartial views of the law? Or put another way, wouldn’t candidates with partisan views and backgrounds be somewhat discouraged from running?

Interesting things to ponder, but the bottom line in this case is that the First Amendment rights of citizens in a political party should prevail.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.