Former UM Law Prof Hones in on Judicial Reform in Montana

We got reaction to the now dismissed ethics complaint against Attorney General Austin Knudsen, and we looked at how Montana voters could choose to reform the state Constitution coming up in 2030.

Former University of Montana Constitutional law professor Rob Natelson is a longtime senior fellow in jurisprudence at the Independence Institute. He's now also teaming up with the Mountain States Policy Center to focus on judicial issues here in Montana.

He joined us on Monday's Montana Talks statewide radio show.

First, I found this very interesting- 2030. Think about it, it sounds like 2030 is a lifetime away...that's in 4 years.

Rob Natelson: "I've done a series of op eds looking forward to the fact that in 2030 Montanans are going to have to decide whether to call another state constitutional convention. They vote on this issue every 20 years. The last two times, they decided not to have a constitutional convention, but the vote was much closer the second time in 2010, and so I've got these op eds to explain some of the problems, as well as the strengths of the Montana Constitution, so that people can go into the voting booth and and even before that, start discussing this issue intelligently. There's a lot to be said about the Montana Constitution that historically you don't see in the mainstream media."

What type of reforms should/could be made to Montana's state Constitution? Natelson outlines several in the audio below; including, language restricting the Supreme Court's ability to overturn citizen voted-in initiatives, unchecked authority of the Board of Regents, the overbroad interpretation on a clean and healthful environment, and more.

What did Natelson have to say about the ethics complaint being dismissed against Attorney General Austin Knudsen. 

Rob Natelson: "I think it was huge, and it's only part of the problem. I mean, there were due process problems with this procedure from day one, and I outlined some of them in the study I did in 2024, of this whole issue. You've got a disciplinary procedure that is controlled lock and stock and barrel by the Montana Supreme Court. So the Montana Supreme Court effectively controls the bringing of charges. It effectively controls the trying of the matter. It effectively controls the appeals process, and in this case, it was the alleged injured party, and so the whole procedure was really inappropriate. I thought it was very instructive that the five judges who were district court judges, as you point out, who were there to serve on the Supreme Court because of conflicts of interest, they all voted for Austin. And I think anyone outside of the procedure who was not deeply involved in didn't have a conflict of interest, would have voted the same way."