The Best Choice for Montana’s Next Supreme Court Justice
Dan Wilson vs. Amy Eddy
DATE: September 14, 2026
Author: Charles Garner
Montana’s Supreme Court race is a choice between two candidates with very different backgrounds. Dan Wilson, whose career spans work as a prosecutor, defense attorney, civil lawyer, justice of the peace, and district court judge.
Favors a philosophy of constitutional conservatism and judicial restraint. Amy Eddy currently serves as a district court judge in Montana’s Eleventh Judicial District, before her appointment to the bench she was president of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association and practiced as a private attorney.
The Proper Role of a Judge
The race may be officially nonpartisan, but the main question remains: what qualities should voters look for in a judge? Even without party labels, voters can review candidates’ public records and the breadth of their legal experience.
Dan Wilson maintains that judges should not formulate policy from the bench. He describes his judicial philosophy as constitutional conservatism and stresses that decisions should be based on the Constitution, existing law, precedent, and the facts of each case, rather than personal policy preferences. Wilson sums up this method as “facts over feelings and principles above all else.” In his view, judges should deal only with the cases brought before them, and they ought to interpret the law, not create it.
The contrast is visible in the other candidates’ own words. Amy Eddy, when asked by the Daily Inter Lake on how she reads Montana’s Constitution, described a somewhat flexible view of it as a living document: “You have to start with the text of the constitution, the structure of the constitution, but it doesn’t stop there.” (Smalley, 2025)
The voter might ask, if it doesn’t stop there, then where does it stop? That is not a neutral position. Judicial activism is therefore a matter of considerable importance. A living-document reading gives a justice latitude to go beyond the Constitution, and when a court goes beyond the text, it is no longer interpreting the law. It is making it.
Wilson has also publicly criticized courts for deciding constitutional questions that were not properly before them. His standard is direct: decide the case in front of you, from the facts, the Constitution, the law, and precedent. Judges should interpret the law, not make it. That distinction is what separates a jurist from a policymaker, and it is the clearest line between these two candidates.
Wilson’s answer is that interpretation should rest on the Constitution’s text, the law, and precedent. That is a fair legal-philosophy question to put to anyone seeking a seat on the high court, and voters can decide for themselves what they want.
Dan Wilson’s Experience and Record
Beyond his philosophical views, Wilson has more than 30 years of experience in Montana law. During that time, he served as a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, civil lawyer, justice of the peace, and district court judge. This variety of experience gives him a wide-ranging view of Montana’s justice system because he has seen it from every side of the courtroom.
Wilson currently serves as co-chair of Montana’s Judicial Standards Commission, following his appointment by the Speaker of the House and confirmation by the Montana Senate. The Commission protects the public from judicial misconduct, safeguards the integrity of the courts, and helps maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Wilson’s selection reflects a measure of trust in his ability to help preserve these standards.
Those who know his work firsthand share that trust. A district judge who served beside Wilson has written that he “follows the law, without ideological bias,” and attorneys and judges who have worked with or appeared before him describe him as fair-minded, diligent, experienced, and respected. In May 2026, after a panel of attorneys and retired judges interviewed both candidates, the Montana Chamber of Commerce endorsed Wilson for his thoughtful, thorough approach to case decisions.
Looking ahead, Wilson has advocated more public oral hearings by the Montana Supreme Court, especially in cases of significant public interest. He maintains that Montanans should be able to watch justices question attorneys and engage openly with important constitutional issues. Given the substantial authority courts exercise, that kind of transparency is worth something.
Amy Eddy’s Background and Record
Eddy has served as a district court judge in the Eleventh Judicial District since 2015 and was retained by voters in 2016. Before taking the bench, Eddy was president of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association as a matter of public record. That professional background doesn’t tell voters how she would rule, but it does say something about the world that shaped her judgment, and voters can weigh it for themselves.
Her earlier work as an attorney also included involvement in a 2011 petition asking the Montana Supreme Court to treat the atmosphere as a public trust and require state action on greenhouse-gas emissions. Attorneys represent many clients and causes, and taking a case is not the same as pre-judging one. Still, that legal theory anticipated the kind of reasoning later seen in the Held decision. The 2023 ruling that promoted a state constitutional mandate to enforce climate policy. Future justices may be asked to define how far Held reaches, voters may reasonably consider this part of her professional bent based in her judicial record.
Eddy argues that politics should stay separate from judicial proceedings. Yet, her public campaign-finance records still reflect political contributions to Democratic candidates and causes. Voters should weigh a judge’s donation record as a matter of understanding their long-term goals.
Reports show Eddy drawing significant support from attorneys, while Wilson’s backing includes business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. Voters can consider where each candidate’s funding comes from and what it may suggest about their close associates.
A Note for Voters of Faith
George Barna’s 2024 research found that roughly 49 percent of Americans who identify as people of faith were projected to abstain from voting in November and their silence hands the wellbeing of society and its moral compass to everyone else. When the culture drifts, courts can drift with it, unless people of conviction show up. Dan Wilson decides from enduring principle, not the mood of the moment. Faith that stays home changes nothing. Faith that shows up can hold a court.
Make Your Plan to Vote
- Montana’s general election is Tuesday, November 3.
- Ballots mail in early October, if you vote by mail, yours must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Postmarks do not count.
- You can register or update your registration in person through Election Day.
- Find Dan Wilson in the nonpartisan Supreme Court race, Seat 4.
- Confirm your county’s exact deadlines at gov before Election Day.
Conclusion
Ultimately, each candidate’s overall values, legal philosophy, and judicial experience should guide voters’ decisions about Montana’s highest court. Please ponder carefully both candidates to examine who you trust before casting your vote.
References
Barna, G., & Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. (2024, October). 104 million people of faith—including 32 million Christian regular churchgoers—projected to abstain from voting in November. georgebarna.com. https://georgebarna.com/2024/10/104-million-people-of-faithincluding-32-million-christian-regular-churchgoersprojected-to-abstain-from-voting-in-november/
Ballotpedia. (2026). Montana Supreme Court election, 2026. https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Supreme_Court,_2026
Coffman, D. (2024, September 24). Benchmate supports Wilson for Montana Supreme Court [Op-ed]. Western News. https://thewesternnews.com/news/2024/sep/24/benchmate-supports-wilson-for-montana-supreme-court/
Daily Inter Lake. (2015, November 19). Newest district judge takes office. Daily Inter Lake. https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2015/nov/19/newest-district-judge-takes-office-6/
Smalley, H. (2025, April 10). Judge Dan Wilson launches new bid for Montana Supreme Court seat. Daily Inter Lake. https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2025/apr/10/dan-wilson-to-run-for-montana-supreme-court/
O’Hair, T. (2026, May 7). Wilson the best choice for Montana’s business climate [Op-ed]. Daily Inter Lake. https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2026/may/07/wilson-the-best-choice-for-montanas-business-climate/
Montana Chamber of Commerce. (2026, May 14). Montana Chamber endorses Judge Wilson in Supreme Court race. https://montanachamber.com/2026/05/14/business-brief-mt-chamber-endorses-in-supreme-court-plans-to-host-more-data-center-webinars/
Montana Judicial Branch. (n.d.). Judicial Standards Commission. Montana Supreme Court. https://courts.mt.gov/Courts/boards/JudicialStandardsCommission
Montana Public Radio. (2024, May 15). Q&A: Dan Wilson, candidate for Montana Supreme Court Seat #3 [Radio broadcast]. https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2024-05-15/q-a-dan-wilson-candidate-for-montana-supreme-court-seat-3
Ragar, S. (2026, May 12). Concerns over partisanship, ‘judicial activism’ shape Montana Supreme Court race. Montana Public Radio. https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2026-05-12/concerns-over-partisanship-judicial-activism-shape-montana-supreme-court-race
Montana Secretary of State. (n.d.). Montana elections: Voter information. https://sosmt.gov
Smalley, H. (2025, May 20). Judge Amy Eddy pledges to steer clear of partisan politics in Montana Supreme Court run. Daily Interlake. https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2025/may/20/judge-amy-eddy-kickstarts-campaign-for-montana-supreme-court
