Montana ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Montana CI-132, explained
Require nonpartisan judicial elections. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wordingWhat appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 132 (CI-132) CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 132 A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION CI-132 amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan. [ ] YES on Constitutional Amendment CI-132 [ ] NO on Constitutional Amendment CI-132
What it actually means
Montana has elected judges without party labels since 1936, under a law the Legislature passed in 1935. That is statute, not constitution, so the Legislature could change it. This initiative adds one sentence to Article VII of the constitution — "Judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan" — which would put the question beyond the Legislature's reach. Making judicial races partisan would then need another vote of the people.
If you vote YES
- A new Section 12 of Article VII would read, in full: "Nonpartisan Judicial Elections. Judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan."
- Candidates for the Supreme Court and district courts would continue to appear on the ballot without a party label, as they have since 1936.
- The Legislature could no longer make judicial elections partisan by statute; only another constitutional amendment approved by voters could.
- The initiative changes nothing else about how judges are chosen — elections, terms and qualifications stay as they are.
- Montana would remain among the 21 states that use nonpartisan judicial elections, with that choice locked into the constitution.
If you vote NO
- Judicial elections stay nonpartisan under the 1935 statute, which is unaffected by the vote.
- The Legislature keeps the power to change that statute and make judicial races partisan without asking voters, as bills in recent sessions have proposed.
- Nothing changes for the 2026 judicial elections themselves.
- The Montana Republican Party's stated goal — letting judicial candidates run with a party designation if they choose — would remain open to the Legislature.
The numbers that matter
- How long Montana has used nonpartisan judicial elections
- Since 1936, under a 1935 statute
- States using nonpartisan judicial elections
- 21
- Reported campaign funds
- $3,384,499 for; $0 against
Montana Secretary of State and Ballotpedia background
Ballotpedia's survey of judicial selection by state; 19 use partisan elections and 21 use retention elections, with overlap
Campaign finance reports through June 25, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia
What each side says2 for, 1 against — quoted, not summarised
Why supporters say YES
"It's simple — judges should be elected based on their record and qualifications alone. Montana citizens deserve to have their cases decided by independent judges, based on the law and facts of each case, without regard to party affiliation."
— Mike McGrath, retired chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court
"Our judges should be elected by Montanans, not hand picked by politicians or political parties. These measures ensure Montana voters have the final say in who serves on our courts."
— Former State Sen. Bruce Tutvedt (R)
Why opponents say NO
"The MTGOP believes Montana should retain judicial elections, but reform them to be free, fair, and honest by allowing candidates to run with a political designation if they so choose, in keeping with their basic First Amendment rights, as well as giving voters the knowledge they need to make an informed decision."
— Republican Party of Montana, in its resolution formally opposing CI-132
What's genuinely uncertain
- No committee registered to oppose CI-132, and the opposition is the state Republican Party rather than a campaign, which is why one argument appears here against two in favour. Through June 25, 2026 the supporting committee, Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts, reported $3.38 million in contributions and nothing was reported against.
- Much of the money for the yes campaign came from outside Montana — the ACLU Foundation ($601,000), The Fairness Project ($500,000), A Better Big Sky ($250,000), The Justice Project ($220,000) and the National Education Association ($125,000) were the largest donors.
- The amendment is a single sentence and does not define "nonpartisan," so how far it reaches — for example, to party endorsements or party spending in judicial races — is not settled by the text.
- Whether nonpartisan elections in fact produce less politically aligned judges is contested and not resolved by evidence either side has published.
The bottom line
Whether the 90-year practice of electing Montana judges without party labels should be locked into the constitution — insulation from a Legislature that could otherwise change it, against removing a question from ordinary politics and from voters who might want party labels as information.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Sources (3)The numbers in the text above link here
Checking it against the official text
The Montana Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Montana Secretary of State.
Other measures on the Montana ballot
Candidates on the same ballot
- U.S. Senate election in Montana
- Montana's 1st congressional district
- Montana's 2nd congressional district