The terms of the two current Montana Supreme Court Justices expire on December 31, 2024. With the required total of seven justices, two must be elected on November 5, 2024, to fill those vacancies. Helping rural voters to be informed is a critical part of the work the Montana Farm Bureau does. With that in mind, we asked the four candidates for the supreme Court to answer questions that were relevant to rural voters and agriculture. Montana Farm Bureau sent a questionnaire to four Supreme Court Justices candidates. Katherine Bidegaray, Dan Wilson, candidates for Supreme Court Seat 3,  Cory Swanson and Jerry Lynch, candidates for Chief Justice.  Jerry Lynch did not respond. At press time, the Montana Farm Bureau has a Supreme Court Candidate debate schedule for October 9th in the Billings area.



Q: What is your background? (Where are you from? What is your education? What experience do you have that relates to agriculture?


Wilson: I was born in Billings in 1964 to parents who grew up in Malta, where my great grandfather homesteaded in 1913 and where my grandfather continued farming during the years I was growing up. My father spent his career largely in veterinary medicine and vaccine development, along with teaching immunology and microbiology. My wife grew up on a farm and ranch south of Creston. After we married, I helped with calving (on occasion) and more often during the winter with feeding and during the spring with vaccinating and branding. My undergraduate degree is from Penn State, where my father was a professor, and my law degree is from the University of Minnesota (1993).


Bidegaray: I was born in Sidney, Montana, and raised on a farm and ranch in Richland County, Montana. With their father, I raised five children on our farm and ranch in Richland County, Montana. I practiced law for 17 years before being elected, in 2002, as District Court Judge for the Seventh Judicial District. I have been re-elected to that position three times since, serving more than 21 years as a general jurisdiction trial judge. I am a proud graduate of Montana’s public schools: one-room Mona School (grades 1-6); Culbertson Junior High and High School (grades 7-12); the University of Montana, earning Bachelor of Arts degrees in both Political Science and Philosophy; and the University of Montana School of Law, earning my Juris Doctor (JD). My roots are in Montana agriculture. My agricultural background includes being raised on our northeastern Montana farm and ranch by Basque Immigrants who survived occupied France during World War II and instilled in me the values of education, work ethic, resilience, and democracy. My dad’s motto was “don’t be a sheep,” from which I learned to think for myself, not to be beholden to anyone, and never to follow blindly. During my second year of law school, my dad died unexpectedly, and, although my family had never missed a loan payment, the Federal government claimed my dad’s death was a default on our loan even though my mom was a co-owner of the land and a co-signer on the loan. Only a law student, and grief-ridden at that, I fought the foreclosure, and by pointing out that the federal government would not be questioning the loans if it had been my mom rather than my dad who had died, the government backed off–a testament to the power of legal knowledge in the right hands. After completing my law degree, I vowed to use my education and talents to combat inequity and protect rights. As a practicing attorney in eastern Montana and western North Dakota, I represented many farm and ranch clients, helping them with many legal issues unique to agriculture. Although I have presided over cases in about 40 of Montana’s 56 counties, I have mainly presided over cases in eastern Montana, many of which involved agricultural issues.


Swanson: I grew up on the Hi-Line before moving to Manhattan, MT for high school. I studied Animal Science and Farm and Ranch Management at MSU for 1 year before finishing college at Carroll College. I raised farm animals and did 4-H and FFA when I was growing up, and worked on ranches. As an attorney, I had agricultural clients and did water law before becoming a prosecutor. My life goal had been to be a rancher before I got off track and became a lawyer, but I'm not dead yet, so dreams may yet be fulfilled. Along the way, I joined the Army National Guard and traveled the world more than I ever thought I would. My education includes a Bachelor's from Carroll College, JD from University of Montana, and a Masters Degree from the US Army War College.



Q: Why do you want to be a Supreme Court Justice?


Wilson: Maintaining the rule of law and stability and predictability in the law is a paramount concern for me. During more than 30 years in the profession, both as an attorney and a judge, I have come to see that we must have district court judges and supreme court justices who are devoted to the scholarly and consistent interpretation and application of our Constitution and laws. Only in this manner can we maintain our society, industry, economy, and Montana way of life. Serving Montanans as a supreme court justice, to me, is one of the highest callings, and I believe my experience and record of professional achievement qualifies me as well as any other candidate for the position. I wish to devote myself to this avenue of public service.


Bidegaray: With nearly two decades of practicing law and over two decades serving Montanans as a district court judge, I have seen firsthand the judiciary’s pivotal role in protecting individuals’ rights and maintaining the rule of law. Putting in extra effort and hours to achieve good outcomes was ingrained in me from my farming and ranching background, driving me to establish treatment courts, the first ones east of Billings, which have made a difference for Montana citizens and communities by saving taxpayer dollars, reducing crime, and helping transform lives. Currently, our 1972 Montana Constitution and some of the unique rights it protects—privacy, education, and the preservation of Montana’s pristine landscapes—are facing significant threats, as many are intent on eroding these fundamental rights. The decisions of the Montana Supreme Court profoundly impact Montanans daily. I am seeking a seat on the Montana Supreme Court because we need justices with integrity and fortitude—not partisan politicians—to uphold our Constitution, to protect and defend our Montana values and rights, and to keep the judiciary fair and impartial. With 39 years of combined legal and judicial experience, I am fully prepared to meet that commitment.


Swanson: I didn't run this race because I want to be a Supreme Court Justice. Even three years ago, I would have ruled out running for the Court. But I ran because I believe the Court needs to change, it will only change from the inside, and no other candidate in the race represented the kind of change we need to see. The current Montana Supreme Court (not all of them, but the majority) is too far toward the activist end of the spectrum, while I would like to move the Court toward the restrained or judicial conservative end of the spectrum. People can complain about Court decisions and the Legislature can hold hearings to talk about it, but those accomplish nothing. The only way to change the way the Court does business is to run and get elected and improve its conduct and methodology of interpreting the law by doing it as a member of the Court. So the key question is what needs to change? The current Court makes unforced errors in how it interprets the law, by focusing too much on case outcomes and not enough on rigorous legal interpretation. Those outcomes tend to favor the liberal or increased risk of liability side of litigation. That gives me concern that the Court is creating instability and uncertainty in the law in service to its goal of supporting liberal outcomes on cases. That is bad for the entire state, not just the political actors. It increases costs, risks, and uncertainties for all Montanans in every type of business and every walk of life. We need to change, and we can change. Hence my candidacy for Chief Justice.



Q: What qualities do you believe are most important in a Supreme Court Justice?


Wilson: I believe a Justice must possess the qualities of scholarly achievement and dedication to the rule of law but, more importantly, a Justice must maintain an attitude of humility before the law. One cannot master the law without, first, becoming its humble servant.


Bidegaray: The most important qualities for a Supreme Court Justice are experience, impartiality, integrity, and a strong work ethic.


Swanson: The most important quality for a Supreme Court Justice is the desire to keep learning every day. That requires intellectual curiosity, scholarly integrity, humility, and a lot of hard work. These terms are 8 years long, and the Justice can either be excited about the challenge of each day or he or she can be bored to death. The second important attribute is the ability to be a teammate. Seven legal scholars, all convinced they know best, have to converse on cases each week. There will be extensive discussion and occasions for offense. For the Court to do its job, they have to become a team, even if they don't agree. That means each must have tough skin to handle hard conversations, as well as grace for themselves and their peers. Ultimately, the job they perform is more important than any one of them, and only a team can successfully carry that burden.



Q: As a candidate, what are your top three priorities?


Wilson: 1. Winning my race in an honorable fashion. 2. Maintaining public trust in the judicial branch as an institution of government. 3. Inspiring confidence in the public that our Supreme Court will function according to its proper constitutional role and function.


Bidegaray: My top two priorities are to preserve the rule of law and keep the judiciary fair and impartial by consistently applying the 1972 Montana Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and established precedent. My third priority would be to help maintain and grow the general public’s confidence in the Montana Supreme Court. Public confidence in the judiciary, one of the three co-equal branches of government, is important for a healthy democracy.


Swanson: My top 3 priorities as a candidate are first to fulfill the trust and carry the hopes of my supporters by doing all that I can to win this race. That means putting in the hard work to travel and meet new people and win them to the cause, generate the kind of publicity needed to reach undecided voters, raise the funds necessary to run our ad campaign, and motivate and activate supporters. My second priority is to win in a way that gives me the credibility and political capital to do the job effectively. That requires the right balance of winning support but also maintaining an open dialogue with my detractors, drawing contrasts with my opponent without engaging in scorched earth tactics, and opening communication to the legal and political leaders across the state that I will have to work with if I win. My third priority is to maintain my responsibilities to my family and work duties so I don't neglect something that is essential or miss important moments in the lives of my wife and children. It's quite a balancing act.



Q: In your view, what are the three most important issues facing Montana agriculture?


Wilson: 1. Maintaining profitability with increasing production costs, including the cost of the business equipment tax. 2. Changes in federal rules affecting the availability of land leases for grazing livestock. 3. Diminishing availability of meat processing facilities for the marketing of livestock products.


Bidegaray: Making a living as a farmer and rancher is not easy. Montana agriculture is facing significant challenges that threaten the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers. The three most critical issues are: Water Management and Availability: Access to water is essential for Montana's agricultural success, especially given changing climate patterns and increasing demand. Ensuring sustainable water management policies is vital to maintaining productive agriculture. Market Access and Fair-Trade Practices: Farmers and ranchers need fair markets, in both domestic and international trade, to thrive. Montana must work to ensure that Montana's agricultural products are not disadvantaged by unfair trade practices. Land and Environmental Stewardship: Protecting Montana’s agricultural lands from overdevelopment, soil degradation, and pollution is key. Sustainable farming practices that balance productivity with environmental health will ensure that future generations can continue to farm these lands.


Swanson: The most important issue facing Montana agriculture is the challenge for the next generation to continue farming and ranching. They face very high costs and unprecedented competition for land versus rich out of state buyers who want a piece of paradise but don't understand or have the commitment to carrying on agriculture or the Montana way of life. The second challenge is the growing urban-rural divide in this state. More and more Montanans are out of touch with the reality of daily agricultural life and issues. That will produce more urban-focused policies and laws at the State level that are harmful for rural life. A third challenge is the continued expense / revenue struggle where costs of everything continue to rise, but the revenue for commodities does not, either due to possible monopolies by the big agricultural processors / buyers, or due to pressure to keep commodity and food costs lower for the American consumer.



Q: What role do you believe the legislature plays in implementing the right to a clean and healthful environment?


Wilson: It is not so much a matter of my personal belief but, rather, the Constitution expressly provides that the legislature is authorized to enforce this right.


Bidegaray: The Montana Legislature is pivotal in implementing the right to a clean and healthful environment, which is enshrined in our 1972 Montana Constitution. The legislature is responsible for passing laws that help protect our environment and for providing adequate funding and resources to ensure that the laws it passes are effective and properly enforced by holding violators accountable. As a judge, it is my duty to interpret and uphold legislative measures and ensure they align with our constitutional protections.


Swanson: The guarantee of the right to a clean and healthful environment is contained in Article II, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution. That same clause lists multiple other rights such as the right to pursue life's basic necessities, acquire property, enjoy and defend their liberties, etc. It is the Legislature's job to understand and respect these rights as it passes legislation. Some may argue these rights are in conflict with each other in this clause, and I suspect the framers intentionally placed these statements together in the clause to show that it requires careful balancing in the policy-making process to not infringe upon each of them. The Legislature is the policy-making branch, so that responsibility falls primarily upon its shoulders.



Q: Do you believe that prior to limiting a person’s property rights the state must establish a compelling state interest?


Wilson: That doctrine is well established in the law.


Bidegaray: Yes, I believe that, before the state can limit a person's property rights, it must establish a compelling state interest. Property rights are fundamental, and any infringement upon them must be justified by a substantial and legitimate public interest. This legal principle is rooted in both state and federal constitutional law, where protections against the unlawful taking or restriction of property are well established. However, it is also important that such state interests, once established, are pursued in the least restrictive means possible to achieve the intended public good, thereby balancing individual rights with the needs of the community.


Swanson: Article II, Section 29 of the Montana Constitution prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation through the power of eminent domain. That is generally recognized as a government power for providing things like highways or other public use infrastructure. Because the government is required to compensate the landowner for it, it generally does not require the showing of a compelling state interest. Those decisions tend to be driven by what has already happened on the ground. For example, a narrow highway that needs to be expanded due to increased traffic or unsafe conditions, will require a larger right of way on one side or the other, or both. The State is pretty limited on where it can expand, and therefore the landowner adjoining the highway is likely stuck with accepting just compensation for losing part of his or her land. But that is likely below the threshold of a compelling state interest in most instances, because they could expand the highway 3 miles farther on, or they could use the other side of the road, etc. That tends to be a rational basis type of argument, so long as the government pays the full value price of the property. But the Constitution guarantees the full price compensation for the landowner, including attorney fees if the landowner asks for more money and prevails in a lawsuit. That provision is unique and a strong support for property owners.



Q: What are your views on separation of powers between the 3 branches of government?


Wilson: Separation of powers is the division of a government's powers into separate and co-equal branches, with each branch having its own, independent powers and responsibilities which are not available to the others. Maintaining the proper balance of powers among the branches requires that each branch resist incursions by another branch into its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and authorities.


Bidegaray: The 1972 Montana Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, mandates the separation of government into three co-equal branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This separation of powers is crucial as it establishes a system of checks and balances, preventing any branch from becoming overly dominant. The primary function of the Montana Judiciary is to interpret laws, which includes reviewing district court cases on appeal and handling applications for writs. Additionally, the judiciary serves as the guardian of the individual rights provided to all Montanans by the 1972 Montana Constitution. When the legislative or executive branches exceed their constitutionally designated powers, the judiciary is responsible for intervening and rectifying such an overreach. This corrective action is vital to maintaining the balance of power among the branches and ensuring that the government operates within its legal and constitutional boundaries.


Swanson: The United States Constitution is the most ingenious governing instrument in human history. The Framers, led by James Madison, wanted to guarantee a republican form of government, but were concerned that over time power would concentrate in the hands of a few (or just one) and people would lose their liberty. So they developed a system where power was shared among different branches and between the states and the central government. For that power to be shared effectively, a certain amount of tension and competition was built into the system. Montana's Constitution has some of that same tension and competition built into its structure. The 3 branches have different powers and functions, and they each have some checks on the other. There is inherently tension among the three. But there is a higher level of tension when the three are not functioning correctly, particularly if any branch tries to usurp the power or dominate the will of the other branch. We seem to be in a period of increased political tension because of separation of powers conflicts among the three branches. My goal is to reduce that tension by zealously fulfilling the duties of the judicial branch, but avoiding usurpation of the other branches' powers or authorities.



Q: What is the general nature of your practice? Indicate any areas of practice in which you concentrated.


Wilson: My practice included work as a prosecutor and also, as a private attorney, representing individuals accused of crimes in both federal and state courts. My civil practice included litigation (commercial and individual), property rights, contract and construction disputes, estate planning, probate, and will challenges, banking law and bankruptcy (representing primarily financial institutions and creditors), and personal injury and professional liability cases representing both plaintiffs and defendants.


Bidegaray: In my first role as an attorney at the Montana State Auditor’s Office, my job was mainly to protect Montanans from insurance and investment fraud. In my private practice of law, I engaged in the general practice that included estate planning, probate, real estate, agricultural law, oil and gas, family law, consumer law, and criminal law.


Swanson: For the past 10 years, I have been the elected Broadwater County Attorney. In that role, about 90% of my practice has been criminal prosecution, and the other 10% has been focused on general county legal issues. These include county roads, local government procedure, Constitutional law issues involving right to know and participate in public policy issues, land use, and other miscellaneous civil litigation. Prior to that, I worked as a Deputy Attorney General and worked on State Land Board decisions and civil litigation involving natural resources. I defended a state timber sale in federal court and represented the state in the Montana v. Wyoming water lawsuit. In my prior law practice, I represented multiple use organizations against environmental challenges to public land resource development, and I represented groups of farmers and ranchers against the State on bison management and other issues.



Q: What endorsements have you received in this race?


Wilson: I anticipate endorsements by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and the Montana Association of Realtors (both are pending). I am endorsed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association.


Bidegaray: I have been endorsed by the following: Montana Federation of Public Employees, AFL-CIO, Big Sky 55+, Montana Conservation Voters, Montana Rural Voters, Montana Sportsmen Alliance, Federal and state judges and attorneys.


Swanson: I have received endorsements from County Sheriffs all over the State, groups such as the Montana Wood Products Association and Montana Chamber of Commerce. Multiple judges and lawyers have quietly supported me, but are unwilling to do so publicly because of the worry of retribution from leaders of the legal establishment. I'm considered an outsider or a challenger to the legal establishment, and that has chilled a lot of supporters in that arena. I'm focusing instead on support from normal people.