Seven judges interviewed for seats on the Judicial Standards Commission told a legislative special select committee that the commission should be consistent, transparent and better resourced — with competent investigators and clear written explanations for complaint dispositions.

The committee, meeting to review applicants for the five‑member commission, heard recurring themes across candidates including the need for: (1) careful selection of neutral investigators, (2) clearer written findings when complaints are dismissed or sustained, (3) options for remedial training or mentoring, and (4) clearer boundaries about when campaign conduct can be the subject of a commission complaint.

Judge Ashley Harada, a district court judge in Yellowstone County who said she has personal experience with the disciplinary process, told the committee an investigator assigned to her case acted unprofessionally. “He threatened me. He told me that hell would rain down on me if I didn't do what he stated I should do,” Harada said, and added the investigator “handled it like he was the prosecutor as opposed to a neutral person.” Harada recommended the commission “utiliz[e] the most qualified, intelligent, unbiased, and competent investigators.”

Several applicants said the commission’s 2023–24 biennial report, which lists complaints and dispositions, increased transparency but left unanswered questions about why specific decisions were made. One candidate suggested creating a permanent staff attorney or law clerk to draft reasoned orders explaining dismissals or sanctions so judges and complainants understand the basis for outcomes.

Rehabilitation, mentoring and alternative dispositions

Candidates discussed nonpunitive alternatives for some complaints. Several judges recommended stronger ethics training, mentoring and targeted remedial plans for judges whose conduct reflected lapses rather than clear malfeasance. Judge Scott Eichner (note: Eichner appeared earlier as DOC staff) was not an applicant, but applicants described mentorship as one tool that would allow correction rather than immediate punitive action when appropriate.

Scope of jurisdiction and campaign conduct

Multiple applicants raised a procedural inconsistency in current rules: the canons of judicial conduct apply in campaign contexts, but the commission’s adopted rules — as interpreted by some applicants — may not give the commission jurisdiction to hear complaints against non‑judges who run for judicial office. Applicants warned this could create a loophole whereby attorneys who run, violate campaign rules, and lose would not be accountable under the commission rules in the same way sitting judges can be.

Oversight, confidentiality and interbranch trust

Some applicants suggested controlled additional oversight. One applicant proposed giving legislative leaders or their designees access to complaint files to provide interbranch oversight; another urged the Commission and the Supreme Court to restore public trust by producing fuller written explanations for decisions and by avoiding off‑record deliberations. Candidates repeatedly emphasized the need to protect due process for judges who are investigated while balancing the public’s right to understand how complaints are handled.

Why lawmakers are watching

Legislators on the special select committee said the topic is timely because the rules governing the Judicial Standards Commission and its reporting have been changed in the recent biennium and because multiple bills in this session would alter judicial selection and oversight. Committee members said they were assessing applicants to ensure the commission will be prepared to carry out its constitutional duties consistently and transparently.

Next steps

The special select committee will consider the interviews as it prepares a slate of nominees for appointment. Applicants asked the committee to consider resources for the commission—investigative capacity, legal drafting support and staff—to ensure the body can issue reasoned written findings while preserving appropriate confidentiality during investigations.