The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) named Montana’s western House district to its list of “Districts in Play” for the 2026 election cycle Tuesday, but didn’t endorse a specific candidate in the crowded Democratic primary. The seat is one of 44 currently held by Republicans the DCCC thinks could be within reach for Democrats this November.

Political analysts have long speculated Montana’s western district, which includes the Democratic strongholds of Bozeman and Missoula, could be competitive for Democrats. The Cook Political Report ranks Montana’s first congressional district as “likely Republican,” while it ranks the eastern district and U.S. Senate races as solidly Republican.

The DCCC’s involvement in the race brings a national spotlight and training opportunities as four Democratic hopefuls compete for the chance to take on Rep. Ryan Zinke in November’s general election. While candidate filing for the primary remains open until March 4, Zinke has yet to draw a primary challenger.

The four-person Democratic primary field includes Ryan Busse, the party’s 2024 gubernatorial candidate; Russell Cleveland, a rancher from St. Regis; Sam Forstag, a wildland firefighter and union leader from Missoula; and Matt Rains, a rancher from Simms, just outside the district’s lines. This year’s primary election will take place June 2.

Montana gained the western district following 2020’s census, and the first election the district was in play was 2022. But Democrats have come up short since Montana gained the seat back.

In both 2022 and 2024, Zinke faced off against Monica Tranel, a Missoula attorney and former Olympic rower. Tranel came within four points of Zinke in 2022. In 2024, her campaign earned a nod from the DCCC. But Zinke widened his margin of victory between 2022 and 2024, besting Tranel by seven points in the latter year. His campaign manager highlighted that margin when asked about the DCCC’s involvement in this year’s election.

“Montana can’t be bought by D.C. libs’ dark money,” said Heather Swift, Zinke’s campaign manager. “It didn’t work in ’24 and won’t work this year. Despite more than $10 million in attack ads against Zinke, Montanans doubled down on their support when they reelected him by double the margin.”

Zinke, a long-time politician, first served a stint as Montana’s at-large congressman from 2015 to 2017. President Donald Trump tapped Zinke to serve in his cabinet as Secretary of the Interior during his first administration, a position Zinke held from 2017 to 2018. And, he has won in the western district since its creation, carving out a brand as a Republican willing to take a stand for public lands. His bid for re-election has already earned an endorsement from Trump.

Still, to Zinke’s Democratic challengers, the DCCC’s involvement in the race indicates his vulnerability. Busse, who ran for governor in 2024, pointed to a poll his campaign released when it launched as evidence. The poll showed Busse with a 47%-43% lead over Zinke among 424 likely voters in western Montana. That lead was within the poll’s 4.76% margin of error.

As the candidates begin hitting the campaign trail, universally, they said they’ve heard about issues like housing, healthcare and affordability. It’s on those issues that they hope to draw a distinction from the incumbent, who they say hasn’t represented Montanans’ interests on those issues in Congress.

“I’m glad the national Democrats see what Montanans have known for years — Ryan Zinke is a coward of a congressman who doesn’t show up to represent or face his constituents, and folks here are ready for a new generation of leadership,” said Forstag, one of the candidates looking to face Zinke. “Montana families have been left behind by politicians in D.C., and I’m running to finally start fixing our broken systems of housing, healthcare, and childcare.”

Cleveland, who has been in the race since April, and Rains, the rancher from Simms, each seconded the idea that Montanans are ready for a change — though they also highlighted that Montanans will be the ones who ultimately make that choice.

“This race is not going to be dictated by Washington, it will be decided by Montanans that are struggling to get by with rising health care costs, lack of affordable housing and tariffs that threaten our way of life,” Rains said. “… We need a candidate that will stand up for Montana values and appeal to those who feel like they’ve been written off, regardless of political party. We need a candidate who can win.”

“National attention can be helpful, but this race will and should be decided by Montanans, not Washington D.C. consultants, dark money groups or out of touch politicians,” Cleveland said. “As a Navy veteran and business leader, I believe real representation can only be restored through service and accountability, by building trust and consistently showing up. Flipping this seat is only possible by putting working Montanans first.”

[email protected]

Montana Republicans say they want “judicial reform.”

That’s cute.

What they want is a loyalty program for judges. Punch seven partisan ballots, get one Supreme Court free.

Let’s be blunt: This isn’t about transparency. It isn’t about efficiency. It isn’t about “facts not feelings.” It’s about turning the Montana Supreme Court into a subsidiary of the state GOP.

Not reform. Capture.

Not balance. Control.

Not democracy. Something uglier.

If you can’t win the argument, change the referee

For decades, Montana has elected judges in nonpartisan races. Why? Because the moment you slap an “R” or a “D” next to a judge’s name, you invite voters to treat courtrooms like cable news panels.

Republicans now say voters “deserve more information.” Translation: They want a shortcut. A partisan brand. A jersey.

Because nothing says “impartial justice” like campaign mailers that read: “Judge Dan Wilson — endorsed by the party trying to change the Constitution to give him more power.”

If you want a red court, just say so. Don’t call it “reform.”

At a recent GOP dinner, Supreme Court candidate Dan Wilson drew applause as party leaders pledged to “counter the left tilt” of the court. The Montana GOP chairman openly said the party needs to counter liberal groups in judicial elections.

Read that again.

They’re not pretending this is about neutrality. They’re organizing to take the bench.

When a judge gets a standing ovation at a partisan dinner, that’s not independence. That’s an audition.

The “Big Sky Blueprint” — or Big Sky Smokescreen?

Meanwhile, “Americans for Prosperity” — which sounds like a Rotary Club pancake breakfast but is actually a Virginia-based nonprofit bankrolled by Charles and the late David Koch network — is carpet-bombing Montana with glossy door-hangers about our alleged “decline.” According to them, regulations killed logging, courts are run amok, and government is the villain in every fairy tale — which is convenient, because when your donors prefer fewer rules and friendlier judges, every problem starts to look like a regulation..

Facts are sacred. So let’s talk facts.

From 1940 to 1960 — the era they romanticize — CEO pay was stable. It actually dropped during WWII and barely crept up in the 1950s. The CEO-to-worker pay ratio hovered around 25-to-1.

Today? Roughly 300-to-1.

Back then, labor unions were strong. Taxes on the wealthy were high. Regulation wasn’t a dirty word — it was how we built a middle class.

They don’t want the 1950s economy. They want the 2020s CEO bonuses.

AFP says judges are blocking the will of the people. But here’s the inconvenient Montana truth: If you don’t like the judge assigned to your case, you can substitute them out with a one-sentence motion.

One sentence. Judge gone. New judge assigned. Rotating system. No judge shopping.

You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You need a piece of paper and a pen.

If your problem is one judge, use the rulebook. If your problem is the rulebook, you’re not seeking fairness — you’re seeking power.

Forty years in the trenches

I’ve practiced law in Montana for more than 40 years. I’ve lost plenty of cases. Won a few. I never once lost because a judge was a Republican or a Democrat.

I didn’t even know what they were.

I lost because the facts weren’t on my side. I won because they were.

That’s how it’s supposed to work.

Will a Republican judge decide your divorce differently than a nonpartisan judge?

Will your child custody case turn on party registration?

Will your property dispute hinge on which primary ballot the judge once pulled?

Unlikely.

What will change is perception. And perception is everything in a court of law.

Justice must not only be blind — it must not wear a campaign button.

But if the GOP’s project succeeds, every controversial ruling becomes a partisan talking point. Every opinion becomes a litmus test. Every judicial race becomes a proxy war.

That’s not strengthening the judiciary. That’s weaponizing it.

When politicians start picking judges like cabinet members, the Constitution becomes a suggestion.

They’re even fighting a constitutional initiative to preserve nonpartisan judges.

Think about that. Citizens want to protect nonpartisan courts. The Republican party wants to defeat that effort.

If your plan requires changing the Constitution to win elections you can’t otherwise win, maybe the problem isn’t the Constitution.

The real goal

This isn’t about education reform.

It isn’t about timber.

It isn’t about pension structures.

It’s about power.

Courts are inconvenient when they enforce constitutional limits. Courts are inconvenient when they say, “No, Legislature, you went too far.”

That’s not activism. That’s separation of powers.

A court that never tells the legislature “no” isn’t conservative. It’s captive.

Montana’s judiciary isn’t perfect. No branch is. But turning it into a partisan branch of the ultra-right Republican Party is not reform.

It’s a power grab in a black robe.

It’s shameful.

It’s undemocratic.

And it’s a problem.

Montana doesn’t need red courts or blue courts. We need courts that are colorblind.

Hands off our Constitution.

Hands off our courts.