Supreme Court candidate’s donation called into question

A current and former judge said Wednesday that a donation made by a state Supreme Court candidate to a group opposing a medical marijuana initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot violates codes of judicial conduct and could cause problems should she win a seat on the high court.

On Wednesday, the political blog Montana Cowgirl reported that Supreme Court candidate Kristen Juras had donated $50 to SafeMontana, which is opposed to the Medical Marijuana initiative I-182.

Juras denied wrongdoing and said Cowgirl is an extremely liberal blog “whose admitted objective is to elect to the Montana Supreme Court an activist judge who will align with its agenda. I’m not their gal.”

She said judges are required to apply the law as adopted, whether it’s a law they supported or not.

Supreme Court candidates face off in Great Falls

Juras, a University of Montana law school professor and Great Falls resident, made the donation in March, according to campaign finance records filed with the Commissioner of Political Practices office. She filed to run for office Feb. 4 and is facing Dirk Sandefur, a district court judge, in the nonpartisan race.

Sandefur said Wednesday he was aware she made that contribution “and I have no comment on it.”

District Court Judge Greg Pinski of the 8th Judicial District in Great Falls said medical marijuana issues frequently come before courts, and if judges are donating personal money on one side or another of an issue, it leaves questions about the objectivity of the court.

“It’s like an umpire betting on a baseball game and then officiating the game,” he said. “We have to be guarded in our activities in what we say or do.”

The Montana Code of Judicial Conduct also applies to judicial candidates, Pinski said.

One of the rules note that a judge or judicial candidate shall not make a contribution “to a political organization, or to or on behalf of any partisan or independent officeholder or candidate for public office.”

“Committing money to see that a certain political action is taken is really concerning,” Pinski said.

Juras said critics would never suggest that current justices, former legislators, are not fit to decide cases involving laws that they either supported or opposed.

“Nor that Judge Pinski recuse himself if called upon to apply a ballot initiative that he voted for or against,” she said.

Initiative 182 allows a doctor to certify medical marijuana for a patient diagnosed with chronic pain and includes post-traumatic stress disorder as a “debilitating medical condition” for which a physician may certify medical marijuana.

Opponents say 182 would erase the protections from rampant abuse of medical marijuana the state Legislature put into place.

In March 2009 there were 736 “medical marijuana” cardholders and 233 marijuana providers in Montana, opponents said. By May 2011 that increased to 31,522 card holders and 4,650 providers.

Opponents also say there was “significant abuse” by physicians of the “Medical Marijuana Act.”

A former state Supreme Court judge who is endorsing Sandefur in the election said his experience has shown that he had to be very careful not to donate to any side for petitions for initiatives.

“Very often those kinds of matters are challenged in court,” said Jim Nelson, who served on the court from 1993-2013.

He said it’s difficult to give an appearance of impartiality if you give one side money voicing support for a position.

A judge would have to recuse themselves if the matter comes before the court.

“You really have to be scrupulous about ethics and stay above fray,” Nelson said. “Anything that happens in Montana could come before the court.”