Keep judicial elections nonpartisan
Source review availableSee exactly what was checked
The fields listed below were checked against the linked sources on October 21, 2026. Future outcomes, final contract awards and individual tax bills are not established by this review.
Checked: Title, Summary, Yes vote, No vote, Beneficiaries, Fiscal estimate, Tradeoffs.
Unknown: Named organizations.
Adds a one-sentence constitutional requirement that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.
Who benefits or is affected
Judicial candidates and voters would have a constitutional requirement for nonpartisan judicial elections. No campaign funding or private award is created.
Costs and tradeoffs
No quantified taxpayer-cost estimate was verified. The measure does not establish a bond or grant program.
Changing the constitutional nonpartisan requirement later would require a constitutional change.
Organizations named in the records
Recipient names: unknown. No separately verified allocation or contract-award list is recorded for this question. This does not mean no recipients exist.
Published party positions
Democratic Party
Unknown — no verified statement is recorded for this question.
Republican Party
Montana Republican Party
The organization explicitly recommends rejection.
Published 2026-04-13 · Source checked 2026-10-21
A position applies to the named organization, not every party member. Missing evidence does not establish neutrality. We do not infer a party’s position from its ideology or a legislator’s vote.