Letters to the editor Oct. 16

Legislating from the bench

The recent editorial (Failed voting laws prove to be costly, Oct 9) states “presenting no certain evidence that Montana’s election system is weak or in peril, or that these new laws are justified.”

The assumption here is that a judge has the right to approve or disapprove of laws based on what he thinks is justified or needed. Judges do not have the right to disapprove of legislation based on what they think is correct or justified. This is called legislating from the bench.

Debating the merits of a law is what the Legislature does, the judge does not get a voice in that. Whether the law is justified or needed is not relevant. That has already been decided by the Legislature. The judge should only have a say as to the constitutionality of the law and whether it is applied equally. Does it violate someone’s rights? If not then the judge has no authority to disapprove of the law simply because he does not like the justification. If you don’t like the laws then go vote.

Another argument was made against the legal cost of defending the law in court. This is irrelevant. If you want to save money stop bringing suits against the state of Montana. Our laws cannot be based on the threats of legal suits. This is intimidation.

I am not saying I support these laws; I am saying that our Legislature makes the laws not judges. Our democratic process should be followed and judges should not legislate from the bench. Separation of powers is part of our democratic process.

— William Fry, Kalispell

Judicial temperament

The legal and campaign hooha over the Montana Supreme Court reveals serious ignorance about the Montana Constitution and what the duties of the court entail.

From the 2021 Legislature, to the Montana State Attorney General, to a current candidate for the Supreme Court; the Republican passion for change runs high, but the substance is weak.

One candidate for Supreme Court justice is campaigning against Joe Biden! Last I heard, Joe had another elected office. Political leveraging in these “bait and switch” ads masks and distorts the office being sought in a bald attempt to get votes. As cute as this is, it does not reflect well on the candidate’s “judicial temperament.”

Granted, it is hard to campaign for an elected judicial office. These positions call for integrity, professional qualifications, fair mindedness, ability to understand the Montana Constitution and the laws of the state, diligence, attention to detail, and clarity of reasoning and writing.

Notably absent as judicial requirements are a defined political stance and geographic representation. State law is the same for everyone, everywhere. Changing the law or the Constitution is a job for legislature and/or the voters.

HB 325 proposing Supreme Court districts was an attempt to work around the Judicial Article of the Montana Constitution. It ignores the principles of one man, one vote for determining districts. It ignores administrative changes required for Supreme Court district oversight. Again, it is up to the Legislature or the people to present formal, well considered amendments to the Art. VII of the Constitution to the electorate.

— Margaret S. Davis, Lakeside