by Cynthia Marble

⁨Please follow us on X and Telegram

When voting for judges, remember that non-partisan does not mean impartial. Look at the US Supreme Court. Some justices interpret the law through a left-leaning philosophy (Progressives), while others interpret the Constitution as written (Constitutionalists). Look at the Montana Supreme Court. They 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 sex on official documents. Justice Laurie McKinnon stated that “transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination.” This unwillingness to define sex 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 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 sex, or it isn’t. What makes more sense (and what is happening) is to understand judges as Constitutionalists or Progressives. CI-132, rather than protecting impartiality in our courts, assures that candidates’ judicial philosophies will be hidden from voters, the very information that would help them make 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 and loosening 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, over-simplified matters to veil deception.

1-194 claims to remove out-of-state corporate money from Montana elections, while left-wing out-of-state dollars fund the measure. That should tell you all you need to know, along with who is promoting it: Pete Buttigieg, AOC, and Jon Tester. Instead, it 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 Progressive. Judge Dan Wison is a Constitutionalist. Please, show up, be informed, and vote.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!