The Special Select Judicial Standards Nomination Committee recommended three district court judges to the speaker for appointment to the Judicial Standards Commission after a day of interviews that highlighted concerns about how the commission investigates complaints and explains its decisions.

The committee of three — Representative Keri Seakins Crowe (chair) of Yellowstone County, Representative Amy Regier of House District 6 and Representative Katie Sullivan (excused) — voted to forward Judges Ashley Harada, Dan Wilson and John Brown to House leadership for confirmation. Representative Amy Regier moved the recommendation; Regier and Chair Keri Seakins Crowe voted aye. The recommendation now goes to the speaker for final action.

Why it matters: candidates repeatedly told the lawmakers the commission needs clearer investigative standards, better-written explanations when complaints are dismissed and more options focused on rehabilitation rather than only public discipline. Several judges warned that the recent change to publish names tied to complaints in the commission’s biennial report has produced misunderstanding and could be used in political attacks.

During the interviews, candidates described a mix of procedural problems and practical fixes. Judge Ashley Harada, a Yellowstone County district court judge who said she previously experienced the commission’s process as a subject of discipline, recommended improving investigator selection and increasing consistency. “One of the critical components for the judicial standards committee is utilizing investigators who are qualified, who are appropriate, who demonstrate professionalism,” Harada told the committee. She added: “the secrecy that has gone on is unacceptable.”

Judge John Brown of the 18th Judicial District (Bozeman) urged more detailed written explanations of dispositions so litigants understand why a case was dismissed or referred for further action. Brown told members the commission “doesn’t oftentimes . . . have the staff or the . . . personnel to write a lengthy explanation,” and said a full‑time law clerk in the commission budget could help produce reasoned orders for both granted and denied complaints.

Judge Hayworth, who serves in the 16th Judicial District, described one complaint in which a self‑represented litigant alleged bias based on a religion the judge said he does not practice. Hayworth said that while the disclosure of complaints can feel harmful when an allegation is baseless, the possibility of a public record also motivates the need for the commission to explain its reasoning clearly.

Several judges urged that the commission use rehabilitative dispositions where appropriate rather than defaulting to public censure. Judges referenced mentorship and additional ethics training as alternatives that could both correct misconduct and preserve judicial capacity. “If somebody's done something that violates the canons, but their career is salvageable, I think we should try to salvage it,” Judge Recht said when asked about mentorship and other rehabilitative options.

On confidentiality and transparency, views among candidates converged on one point: balance is necessary. Judge Dan Wilson summarized the predicament in plain terms: the Judicial Standards Commission functions like “internal affairs” — unpopular but necessary for institutional integrity — and must be staffed and empowered to do fact‑based investigations while protecting legitimate confidentiality where required.

Candidates repeatedly distinguished between complaints that challenge legal rulings and those that raise ethics issues. Several interviewees emphasized that dissatisfaction with a judge’s decision is the correct subject of appeal, not an ethics complaint. As Judge Souza, a Yellowstone County judge, put it: many complaints stem from litigants unhappy with an outcome; “that’s not the reason for this body.”

Committee action and next steps
The committee made a formal motion recommending three judges — Ashley Harada, Dan Wilson and John Brown — to the speaker for confirmation to the five‑member Judicial Standards Commission. The committee recorded two aye votes (Representative Amy Regier and Chair Keri Seakins Crowe); Representative Katie Sullivan was not present to vote. The committee’s recommendation does not itself appoint members; confirmation is performed by the House speaker and any applicable confirmation process.

What candidates asked lawmakers to consider
- Invest in investigators and staff who can produce thorough, neutral findings and draft reasoned disposition letters; several candidates said limited staff capacity forces the commission to issue terse dismissals that frustrate complainants.
- Preserve a clear line between appeals of judicial rulings and ethics investigations; the body should screen out disposition‑based complaints and focus its investigative resources on canonical violations, conflicts of interest, corruption, incapacity and other ethics breaches.
- Expand rehabilitative options such as mentorship, training or monitored remediation for judges whose conduct appears remediable rather than imposing only punitive sanctions.
- Reconsider how disclosure is handled so published lists of complaints and dispositions do not become tools for “lawfare” or political attacks, while preserving meaningful public oversight where appropriate.

Quotes from candidates and staff
- Rachel Weisz, legislative staff, opened the hearing by describing the commission’s constitutional foundation: “The Judicial Standards Commission is a commission that's created in Article 7, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution. . . it is responsible for taking complaints about judges and justices in the state and investigating those complaints and then the commission makes recommendations to the supreme court for removal or discipline of those judges.”
- Judge Ashley Harada: “One of the critical components for the judicial standards committee is utilizing investigators who are qualified, who are appropriate, who demonstrate professionalism.”
- Judge John Brown: “They don't oftentimes . . . have the staff or the . . . personnel to write a lengthy explanation of why something [was] denied. . . . They’re requesting . . . additional funding to at least maybe provide the commission . . . a full‑time law clerk who could write these orders.”
- Judge Dan Wilson: candidates “described this to me as being a little bit like internal affairs in a cop movie. . . Everybody hates the internal affairs cops, but that's what this is.”

Taper / what happens next
The committee closed the public portion of the hearing and moved to executive action. The committee’s recommendation — now forwarded to the speaker — begins the next step of the appointment process. If the speaker forwards nominations for confirmation or appointment, any final appointments, and any resulting change to commission composition or budgetary requests (such as funding for a staff attorney or investigators), will be a separate subsequent action.

Meeting context and scope
This hearing was one of a series of candidate interviews the special select committee scheduled; the committee said seven judges applied and the panel interviewed each candidate in turn. Many candidates drew on long judicial and prosecutorial experience in their answers and emphasized the small‑state dynamic in Montana — where judges, litigants and lawmakers often know one another — as a reason to prioritize neutral investigations and clear, written explanations for commission actions.