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.

NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA — As changes to U.S. meat labeling rules took effect earlier this year, some Montana ranchers hoped new “Product of USA” regulations would help clarify the origin of beef sold in grocery stores. But with an increase in imported lean beef trimmings being blended into ground beef products, producers say the need for transparency has become even more urgent.

Madison Collier reports – watch the video here:

Country Of Origin Labeling debate continues

In January, updated “Product of USA” labeling rules went into effect that allow beef processors to use that designation under certain conditions.

• Check our previous coverage here

Now, some producers across Montana are adding their voices to a renewed push for mandatory country-of-origin labeling, arguing that voluntary or conditional labeling doesn’t go far enough to ensure traceability in a changing market. In January, members of the Montana Country-of-Origin Labeling Coalition held a press conference in Billings calling on Congress to reinstate mandatory COOL and restore “fair and transparent markets” for producers and consumers alike.

• Learn more about the coalition’s efforts here

Mandatory COOL was repealed in 2015 after the World Trade Organization ruled that it discriminated against Canada and Mexico’s livestock exports.

Since then, beef labeling has been largely voluntary, leaving no federal requirement to disclose where cattle were born or raised.

At the heart of the debate is the question of how consumers can know where the beef they buy was raised and processed. With more imported beef entering the U.S. market, producers say the current labeling framework allows ground beef products to mix domestic and foreign beef without clear identification.

The western district director of the Montana Cattlemen’s Association and a producer out of Fairfield, Tim Brunner, has been among those emphasizing the uncertainty that creates for consumers.

“Now would be a great time to implement COOL, to prove and show people what you’re buying,” Brunner said. “The consumer’s going to pay the same price for beef, except now it may have more blended foreign beef in it, and they won’t even know.”

Proponents of mandatory labeling argue that it would give consumers confidence in what they’re purchasing and help U.S. producers distinguish their products in a competitive global market.

While the Montana Stockgrowers Association is not a part of the Montana COOL Coalition, Leslie Robinson, the president of the association, echoed that point, saying traceability isn’t just about marketing, it’s about safety and trust.

“We raise a very healthy, safe product in the United States, and traceability is important,” Robinson said. “Consumers should be able to know where their beef comes from and have confidence in the standards behind it.”

Currently, the labeling landscape includes both voluntary and conditional designations, but no nationwide requirement that beef products state their country of origin. That was the case before the repeal of M-COOL nearly a decade ago, and the coalition argues that turning back the clock on mandatory labeling could provide needed clarity as market dynamics shift.

As debates continue around beef imports, labeling standards, and trade policy, these Montana producers maintain that clearer rules will benefit both ranchers and consumers by making the supply chain more transparent from pasture to plate.