Latest / Follow the Leighder / What's at Stake in Montana's Supreme Court Race | Judge Amy Eddy

Transcript

What's at Stake in Montana's Supreme Court Race | Judge Amy Eddy · Follow the Leighder

• Leigh/@followtheleighder: Well, howdy folks, and welcome back to another episode of Follow the Leighder I'm your host, Leigh Larson. I do have a little bit of a hoarse, raspy voice this week. I think it's a little bit of allergies in the transitional season. But y'all joining me today. This is really cool. This is really, really cool. Joining me today, representing Flathead County District Court is Judge Amy Eddy. Welcome to the studio, Judge. Judge Amy Eddy: Well, thank you. Thank you for having me on. I'm happy to be here. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Absolutely. Folks, check out this, this, this resume, really. So Judge Amy Eddy grew up in a small family lodge, much into out of Idaho, really, Stanley, Idaho, growing up, winners farming, small town, small schoolhouses, very much in line with what a lot of Montanans have known and grown up all our lives. That work ethic, that sense of of family, of outdoor sense of connection, resilience really shaped her, eventually guiding her into the practice of law. She has since 2015, she has been since elected three times by the voters of Flathead County, and has presided over more than 10,000 cases as a district court judge, ranging from Calispell to Glendive. But here is where we really, really need Judge Amy Eddy because she's running for Montana Supreme Court. it is intended to be a nonpartisan race. The other candidate has been a little partisan, that's for sure. But this is a winnable race, folks. And I really want y'all to get to know Judge Amy Eddy so we can hear her vision. we can hear why this court and race matter. But first, I mean. We gotta hear from you. What what brings you into law? What what about being a judge has has has guided you in the last decade or so? Because I mean you have really taken on some some big cases, some big wins. Thank you. What what drives you in that? Judge Amy Eddy: Well, you know, it's interesting. I I wasn't raised in a legal family. I didn't know any judges. I didn't know any lawyers. I don't know that my parents did. I have a big extended Catholic family and I am the only one with a legal education, so it was a little bit out of step. But I did grow up at a family lodge and I started working in a family restaurant with my dad when I was twelve and I've been working ever since. And pretty much all I had done by the time I got out of college was wait tables and Cater weddings and do things like that. And when I got out of college, I was a little at my wits' end. I had a sociology degree. I wasn't sure what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. And I had a friend who was going to law school. And she said, Hey, why don't we go to law school together? And I said, Wow, hadn't considered it. That sounds great. And applied and ultimately attended the University of Montana School of Law, which is how I got to Montana. As you said, I was raised in Idaho. And It really resonated with me. I like the structure of it. I like to be able to help people. As I mentioned, I have a sociology degree. So I went into private practice in Flathead County in 2001, right when I graduated, and spent 15 years in private practice. And when I was in practice, I did a lot of appellate work before the Montana Supreme Court, which really piqued my interest in appellate work and the work of the Supreme Court. And then in 2012, Montana brought a challenge to a recent US Supreme Court case called Citizens United. And your listeners might have heard of that case, I would assume, but it's the one that established corporate free speech rights and the ability to spend in elections. So Montana brought a challenge to that under Montana's Crop Practices Act that we'd adopted back in the 1930s as a result of the Butte Copper Kings. I had the distinct pleasure and honor of representing almost all of the retired Montana Supreme Court justices. And what we were trying to do is say, look, even if you don't carve out an exception for Montana when it comes to Citizens United, please carve out an exception for judicial elections. Because our citizens have a right to a free and independent and impartial judiciary, and unlimited corporate spending infringes on that right and undermines their trust. In the judicial branch. So we prevailed in front of the Montana Supreme Court, but lost in front of the United States Supreme Court, which said, Montana, if you choose to elect your judges, this is what you get. And so it was through that experience I really became particularly devoted to the branch as an independent branch. It was right. in that same period of time. I actually applied for an appointment on the Supreme Court back in 2012. I didn't get it. It was when Justice Jim Shea was appointed. And then that really worked out the best for me, frankly. In 2015, a vacancy opened for the seat I have now, and I was encouraged by a Supreme Court justice to apply for it. So I've been sitting as a trial court judge. That's what district court judges do in We There are about 53 of us now, but we handle all of the felony criminal cases, all the family law cases, all the child abuse and neglect cases, probate, guardianship, all the complex civil cases. And that's about 58,000 cases a year, is what we handle. So From this experience, now almost eleven years, and having handled all of these cases, running for the Supreme Court is really just a different way to continue to serve the citizens and be involved in the judicial branch. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Absolutely. Well, and I would on both sides of it, your your commitment to independence, getting money out of our courts is is I mean, Citizens United, I know so many of us recoil at that word. And it it it ha the money that has been brought into campaign finance, online marketing. podcast, social media, all of all that I see, that my followers see. I mean, it's devastating. And so I appreciate you naming that as as part of your sense of resilient respect. Go ahead. Judge Amy Eddy: Well, you know, I mean, the United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights for Free Speech. And political speech is really protected and elevated. We don't want to be limiting anyone's ability to to talk about the important issues of our time, but it's really a reflection of when the United States Supreme Court establishes a right. like corporate free speech, and it applies across the entire country without exception. It's a minimum baseline for free speech rights. You know, the states are then living in the consequences of that. And, you know, now we see this nationalization of politics at all levels. school board, city council, where there are national interests who are involved and able to spend. And that's that's just the law. It's it's not even you know, worth arguing about. The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the First Amendment, and that's the way they've interpreted it. And here we are. So unless we as citizens decide to amend the United States Constitution, which is a bit of endeavor, this this is just a reality that we that we live in right now. Leigh/@followtheleighder: So with things like yeah. So what would that look like then? I I I I don't know if we want to go too much into dark money or if we want to come back into some of these other races, but there are so many concerns, I guess, like you said, the nationalization, the where is this money coming from? Who are these people, those kinds of things. you have been in Montana. you know, like you said, since law school, handling over 10,000 cases, a sense of of, you know, sacredness to the independence. By the way, I do want to mention, thank you for taking on the emotional toll of all the family cases. I know that that's a lot. And 'cause it's real I mean that it that weighs on you. but you have such a deep sense of of what's going on at the court level. Can you talk about The Montana Constitution. I know we've talked about the nationalization. We've got these different interests coming up and local towns, but our constitution is really special. Can you can you talk about that a little bit? Judge Amy Eddy: I will, before we dive into the Montana Constitution, I just want to make sure your, you know, your listeners know that all the independent money that gets spent in these races, whether it's a Supreme Court race, a congressional race, a city council, county commission, or legislature, the only thing the candidate controls is the candidate's own message. We are not allowed to coordinate with these other entities. We have no control over what they say. So if you see a flyer and it doesn't say paid for by Judge Amy Eddy from Montana Supreme Court, that is not my messaging. I can't call them and tell them to stop. I can't call them and tell them to do something different. That's a line that we have in campaign finance. So I just want to make sure your your listeners understand that if they see something distasteful or they don't think it's true, it's not coming from the candidates. It's coming from these other, these other entities. Or maybe it's really great and it's well produced and it hits points that the candidate is not hitting. we also don't have any control over that part of it. But turning to the Montana Constitution, we had an original constitution that we adopted in 1889 to become a state. It was a requirement to become a state that we have a constitution. And we were one of, I think it was about six states that came in during that period of time. And if you go back and read those 1889 constitutions, they use the some Same template, so to speak. They addressed all the same concerns and issues that were facing the territories and then needing to come into statehood. So these states were then, you know, fast forward however many years, confronted with constitutions that might not actually fit their needs. And the question became: do we rewrite our constitution or do we just continue to amend it? So that question was posed to voters in Montana, and they said, yes, we're going to rewrite the Constitution top to bottom. Interestingly, in Idaho, where I was raised, they said, no, we're not going to rewrite the Constitution. We're going to keep our original 1889 constitution and we will just continue to amend it as we need to amend it to meet whatever is happening. So 65% of the vote, we formed a constitutional convention and there were a hundred delegates to it. We call it the CONCON. And the delegates were interesting because if you were already an elected official, you were not qualified to run to be a delegate. So if you were a sitting judge, legislator, member of the executive branch, you were you weren't qualified. So the delegates ended up being normal Montanans, not politicians. And they were elected. There were 58 Democrats, 36 Republicans, 16 Independents, which is just a reflection of what Montana looked like at the time. They voted to seat themselves in alphabetical order to prevent any political caucusing of the parties. And they had two months of public meetings. There's a full transcript of the Constitutional Convention that's archived, it's searchable, it's just an extraordinary research or research resource is what I meant to say. But, you know, after serious disagreement, fierce debate, it was unanimously adopted by all 100 delegates. Then it was a race to have it ratified by the voters in June of 1972 went to the vote of the public and it passed with just a little over a 2,500 vote margin. So it was close. But what the 1972 constitution probably at its inception originally represented was a massive shift in political power to individuals. which is why at the time it was adopted, it was described, I think it was in the New York Times, as a prairie revolution. And then more recently, we've had some of our elected officials call it a socialist rag. So it really raises strong emotions about what it stands for, what it represents, and how it fits into modern times. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Thank you. I it has it it's one of the particularly the most recent constitution is one of the simplest, I think. It's very straightforward. and and it's probably like you said us like you said that it it is what makes it kind of vulnerable. It is also, folks, one of the only constitutions in the state that protects indigenous education in our public schools. that is in our constitution and all of our children will will be exposed to indigenous education. And I think that's really, really special. I know it was just under Judge Amy Eddy: You know, it's an Leigh/@followtheleighder: fire. Go ahead. Judge Amy Eddy: well, it's an it's an interesting point because at the time we adopted the constitution, Native Americans were not allowed to vote in Montana. I mean, that's you know, almost within my lifetime, that was a circumstance. And despite that prohibition, the delegates included Indian education and mandated it that it be required. in public schools. But we can't talk about that anymore because I'm actually sitting on a class action case about Indian education funding that hopefully Leigh/@followtheleighder: goodness. Judge Amy Eddy: we're getting resolved in December, but I don't want to talk out a turn on on Indian education. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no. That's totally completely fine. But Judge Amy Eddy: But I think we should talk about some other of the, you know, sort of interesting individual rights that are in the in the Montana Constitution. And if you don't mind, I'm gonna read the preamble of the Montana Constitution Leigh/@followtheleighder: Absolutely. Judge Amy Eddy: because I bet some of your listeners haven't heard it. We, the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity, and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations to ordain and establish this constitution. So when you then turn to the Declaration of Rights, which is like the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, you see all of these protections come in for individuals and frankly for the environment. So if you look at the Declaration of Rights, it includes rights that are not included in the United States Constitution and they're not enjoyed by citizens of other states. You can start with the right to participate in government decisions before they're made. there's probably a lot of your listeners who might have engaged in public comment before public meetings at some point in time. She's raising her hand if you listeners can't see that. Yeah, that's Leigh/@followtheleighder: Yeah. I have. Yeah. Judge Amy Eddy: because of the Montana Constitution. Or you want to make a public records request for all of my emails, you can do that because of a constitutional provision about the right to know. How government decisions were made, assuming they're not confidential. We have an explicit right to privacy in the Montana Constitution that does not exist in the United States Constitution, of course. We've already talked about being the only state with Indian education requirements. We're also the only state with a right to dignity. In our inalienable rights, are the rights we're just sort of endowed with that the government cannot take away. It includes all the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness ones that you're familiar with from the United States Constitution, all the rights regarding property, but it also includes the right to a clean and healthful environment, which has been an important point of litigation in Montana most recently and really a flash point for people who say the Montana Constitution should be rewritten, that the environmental protections are not In balance with the other interests in the Constitution. So there are just a whole bunch of things in the Constitution that the people don't appreciate. And it's also unique in the sense that specifically, every 20 years, we get to vote on whether or not we want to form a new constitution. We're required to do it. And the last time we voted was in 2010. And in 54 of 56 counties, we said, no, we do not want to rewrite the Montana Constitution. And what I take that to mean is we were happy with the language of it, we're happy with the way the Montana Supreme Court had been interpreting it. And we were satisfied with the ability of the other branches of government to operate within the constitutional limits of the Constitution. So with that requirement of a periodic revision. We give every generation of Montanans the opportunity to participate in its development. And in those votes, we pull the Constitution forward with us into modern times, which, of course, that's the whole point of the law, is to resolve disputes of modern people in modern times with modern problems. So we'll vote again in twenty thirty. And I tell people, you know, before you vote and answer that question, you should know what's in the Montana Constitution. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Yeah. Absolutely. I and and that was something that I was very much I'm from Texas originally, then I was in Colorado with the Air Force, and then I got out of the Air Force in Colorado and followed my now ex-husband up to Montana, like a lot of women have done. I I had to learn that story. I was like, turns out Have it not work out. But that's really what got me personally into women's history and women's law out in the Rockies was because my divorce experience was radically different here than it would have been in Texas, radically. Even the way Montana women treated me, Montana mint, like I was kind of nervous. I was like, no, they're Irish Catholic up here. I'm coming from Southern Baptist evangelical, you know, like I I don't wanna. And then they it was. Very much what you're saying in regards to our constitution. Yes, it's in you know, it's deeply Catholic or recovering Catholic, as I've come to find. but it is just so libertarian. I it is just so you have that Catholic, and again, there's obviously Protestants here. I'm Protestant, that's not what I'm saying, but just on the whole, that Irish Catholic and coming in, I was like, this is It's a different, it's it's a beautiful way that I think Montanans talk about their relationships with one another. Like it's you've got that Catholic care, that heart, that like reverence for people, life, and and the spiritual. But again, going back to that libertarian, it's it's very compassionate. And I wish more Americans could understand that. I'm like, it's very cool. They deeply love you, but they also just want you to do whatever you want to do. Judge Amy Eddy: And they mind their own business, right? I mean, it's it's really Leigh/@followtheleighder: And mind your own business. Judge Amy Eddy: a populist document, is is how I would how I would describe it. And when you think about constitutions, like what's the whole point of having one? Why bother? And the whole purpose is obviously to organize the structure of government and how we're going to operate. It's to establish the rights of the citizens. And what we do when we establish rights of citizens is we limit government action. That's what we're doing. We're saying government, you have no business in these areas, by and large. Now, we also in our constitution require the government to do some affirmative things, right? You are required to provide Indian education or you're required to do certain things. so it has a little bit more of of that balance in areas where we're interested in government involvement. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Well and and what use Judge Amy Eddy: One of the Leigh/@followtheleighder: go ahead. Judge Amy Eddy: well I was just gonna I was just gonna add on the environmental protections, you know, most people in Montana understand the provision that individuals have a right to a clean and healthful environment and it's been litigated quite a bit. But the Montana Constitution has a whole other section on the environment and natural resources, and it deals with water rights, it covers that we have, and I'll read it to you. It's Article Nine, Section Seven, Preservation of Harvest Heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state, but of course, does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights. So we have specifically amended our constitution, and that happened in 2004, to recognize that heritage which relies on open space, right? And public access to rivers, things like that. And then separately, it it requires all of us, the state and all individuals, says the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present And future generations. And it goes on to say the legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources. So if you think about the time it was adopted, we were coming out of the civil rights era, of course. And we were in a period of time where there was a lot of pressure for energy development, coal mining in the eastern part of the state, hard rock mining in the western part of the state, for all the essential things that we needed to run a modern economy. And it really took that back to to the individuals to decide how we were gonna try to do that. Leigh/@followtheleighder: I don't I have one question about one thing we haven't really talked about we talked about indigenous education, but public schools, and and all sorts of things going on, particularly as it might relate to some of these Christian private schools. Just can you can you talk to us talk through us why concerns with the constitution in our education? Is i are those a concern that you may have? I know that there was a a court case back in Calispel years ago. and I'm curious if that is is a pressing issue now. Judge Amy Eddy: Well, of course, the Montana Constitution requires that a free basic quality education be provided to public school students. That's the constitutional mandate. And there was a challenge to the way that public education was funded, let's call it 15, 20 years ago, I want to say. And as a result of that litigation, there there were adjustments made into the education funding formula. Right now we have an interim. interim, excuse me, commission that's been meeting with the legislature to try to come up with whether some rebalancing, reinfusion, what is funding a public education gonna look like moving into the future, assuming there's a problem with it. And I'm not predeciding any of that. And that's absolutely an issue that I think will come before the Montana Supreme Court. And I don't want to say anything that would then recuse my recuse myself from it. But you know, I used to be on the Whitefish School Board for a few years and so I'm very familiar with how complicated education funding is and how it plays out differently, not just in different counties, but within different school districts within the state, within the same county. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Yeah, absolutely. Well and and speaking of go ahead. Mm. Judge Amy Eddy: But I think it's if I can just interrupt you for a second. you know, the United States Supreme Court decided Brown versus Board of Education, which dealt with desegregation of schools. On a racial basis. Not long after that, it was a school in Texas that challenged an equitable funding in public education in Texas. And it went up to the United States Supreme Court to establish a constitutional right to equal education funding. And the United States Supreme Court declined. To recognize that right. So the plaintiffs, I'm assuming I wasn't alive then, I don't think, but I think the plaintiffs to probably took that as a pretty hard loss. But what ended up happening is that the states were then free to recognize that right under their own state constitutions. And that's what happened in Montana. We have the a right to free basic quality education. So it's a little historical example. of how you might lose a case, but the end result is you have 50 examples across the country of all the creative and meaningful and maybe failing ways that states have chosen to fund public education. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I you were talking earlier about the the districts being different even within the same county, which kind of also speaking of the same county, you and and are are running against someone y'all are both y'all are both from it. So we have Dan Wilson, and y'all recently just spoke in Calus Bell. And whoever wins, the the the bench is gonna be open. back in flathead county. Talk to us. What's the Judge Amy Eddy: Yes, there'll be a vacancy. Leigh/@followtheleighder: wealthy? talk to us about your decision to to run. I know we have three term justice Beth Baker. she announced last year that she's she's stepping down. Talk to us about what brought you into this fight. Judge Amy Eddy: Well, I have a lot of respect for Justice Baker. she's been on the court for a long time. She's been a very steady presence and has a real commitment to access to justice for people who cannot afford lawyers, whether that's helping them secure legal counsel, secure mediations in family law cases, and streamlining the rules for some of our our self-represented litigants. And so, you know, I've Feel for myself that I've had a similar commitment in those areas. And so when she announced her vacancy, I'll have been on the bench now 11 years. And it just seemed a natural opportunity for me to try to step into that role and just contribute in another way to the judiciary and to the citizens. Because You know, we all deserve Supreme Court justices who are fair, impartial, experienced, and independent, who we can count on when they come to court, they know the judge is going to give them a fair hearing. They're going to listen to all the evidence. They're not ruling on cases from the from the headlines. They're certainly not ruling on them based on social media comments. We're ruling based on evidence that's been admitted in court, on whatever the law is, and that people know they'll get that fair shake. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Well, and and you talk about fairness and impartiality. That is what the Supreme Court race is supposed to be. that is whether I mean f federally or at the state level, that is that is the vision. there is a ballot constitutional initiative, 132, CI 132. It would require judicial races to remain nonpartisan. They've already been for n for decades. Judge Amy Eddy: Yes. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Why do we need to get this in writing? Why does this need to be a constitutional initiative if it's already what's the concern there for for the lack of neutrality? Judge Amy Eddy: So to back up a little bit, the Montana Constitution just says judges shall be elected in whatever way the legislature determines. So it's silent on whether they should be partisan or nonpartisan. So for 90 years, really without any controversy, the legislature has said the policy of this state is to have nonpartisan judicial elections. Increasingly, in recent legislative sessions, it's been a little more contentious. There's been more of a push to make partisan judicial elections. So if you were to vote yes on 132, what you're saying is we want nonpartisan judicial elections protected in the Montana Constitution, and we want to take that question away from the legislature. We don't want to leave it up to them. We don't want it used as a bargaining chip. It's in the Constitution. If you vote no on 132, maybe you think they should be partisan, or maybe you just want to leave that question to the legislature. But regardless, even if it passes fundamentally, it does not change the experience I'm having right now. You know, I'm running a nonpartisan judicial election. So that's really You know, I'm committed to nonpartisan judicial elections because it's the law, right? That's the public policy that we that we have had set. And it's also embodied in the code of judicial conduct, which prevents me from engaging in a number of partisan, partisan activities to preserve not just the nonpartisanship of the rule, but also the public's right. to a fair and independent judiciary and due process rights. So that's really what CI one hundred thirty two is about. It's about whether the question should be taken away from the legislature and protected in the Constitution. Leigh/@followtheleighder: And you will be running for one of the six seats. There is the high the the chief Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, but you will be running Judge Amy Eddy: The Chief Justice, yes. Leigh/@followtheleighder: as an associate justice. Can you talk about why this race matters or a few things about the Montana Constitution? J talk to us about why this matters so much. I know you talk about being nonpartisan, but there are some and absolutely. But there are some major things on the horizon that Montanans need to be aware of. Can you share some of those that you see? Judge Amy Eddy: Well, part of it is is simply how this campaign has rolled out. political parties have a First Amendment right to endorse judicial candidates, under federal law at the very least. And they have a First Amendment right to spend money in judicial elections, make independent expenditures, anything else. But for the first time this election cycle, political parties are allowed to contribute directly to judicial candidate campaigns, meaning we get the money if we took it and can use it in whatever way we see fit. So it's a little over $84,000 that the political parties can contribute in both the primary and general election. And in contrast, for any individual, It's $830. That's all you can contribute. And of course, corporations can't contribute directly to judicial candidates in Montana. So when that law passed, I immediately made a commitment that I wasn't going to accept any political party money. I'm not attending any political party events. I'm not seeking any political party endorsements. and I've declined invitations from both major political parties to appear at their events. So while it's lawful to accept that money, it's not judicial. It undermines the whole purpose of nonpartisan judicial elections, which we have set it as the policy of the state, and frankly, undermines the public's trust in the impartiality of the judiciary. And I have an ethical obligation to uphold the impartiality of the judiciary. that's part of my ethical obligation. And so I have stayed away from all of that. And that's in contrast to to Dan Wilson. I mean, he has been keynote speaking at political party events, he has received political party endorsements, which seems like he sought and has accepted at least forty thousand dollars in direct political party money. So that's something that we as a state, I think we're at a crossroads for this, not only on nonpartisan judicial elections, but also what we're gonna tolerate from our judicial candidates. What behavior are we going to tolerate? And is that person that you want sitting on the Supreme Court who is providing you due process and equal protection and access to justice and access to the courts. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Absolutely. You know, and especially with how deeply polarizing everything has become, that Judge Amy Eddy: Yes. Leigh/@followtheleighder: there is, you know, a s a a deep sense of deep a distrust. Like on one side, like, yeah, that's maybe for some folks it's cool to see a judge be so on your team, but like that's a judge. Like that's that's not that's not someone it it it's a different ball game. And we I would hope that a lot of us would feel very twisted at the very least about how Dan Wilson is conducting a supreme court again, listeners, Supreme Court race, campaign race for for Montana, this this behavior. Judge Amy Eddy: You know, I would say that maybe 10 years ago, maybe a little bit longer, it would have been routine for judges to who are running against each other to appear together at both conventions of the political parties to introduce themselves. Just like this is who I am, this is how I'm running. But to your point, things have become so partisan, particularly, you know, in recent years, that most judges are just taking a pass on attending political any political party events. For that reason. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Absolutely. Well, talk about, you know, Montana's got a lot going on, race wise. This race specifically. why do you believe that it's it's winnable? I your I mean your resume is absolutely solid. I'm not discounting you. I just yes, I believe you are a winnable candidate. But I mean, really, like Judge Amy Eddy: Thank you. Leigh/@followtheleighder: what we're saying is like with all the polarization, How is the why do you think that acting righteously, I guess, is the right or or with dignity, integrity? Why do you think that is what makes you winnable? Or do you think there's other things that also make it winnable? Judge Amy Eddy: We you know, I mean, I have a breadth of of experience, both legally and judicially, and I'm certainly running on that record. But we have been I I can't even tell you how many miles we've traveled. As you know, I run this campaign out of Calispell, which is in the far northwest corner of Montana. And some of my friends think billing is on the eastern side of the state. I'm like, no, it's in central part of the state. We've been everywhere and everywhere we go. Regardless of people's political backgrounds, we have been warmly received. Everybody wants non-partisan, independent courts. They want an independent branch of the government. They understand the value of a state Supreme Court who enforces the constitution, who guards their individual liberties, who prevents government overreach. Into their lives. That is a very traditional Montana value. And I see that everywhere we go. And you know, in addition to that, I did win the primary. I wasn't sure if I was going to. You know, Dan Wilson ran and lost in 2024. He probably has a little bit better name recognition statewide than I did when I started that race. And so that gave me a lot of confidence. that this message of nonpartisanship and independence was really resonating with voters and that they don't want partisan judges. You know, what I tell people is you might like the political party that's in power right now, but you might not like the political party that's in power 10 years from now. And the other thing is you don't ever know what side of a dispute you're actually going to be on. Right? You don't know what side of an environmental dispute that you might Leigh/@followtheleighder: Uh-huh. Judge Amy Eddy: be on, or a privacy dispute, or a gun regulation dispute. It's easy to take shortcuts with political party designations, but when it comes to your own disputes, your own family, your own business, all of a sudden the calculus can become much more sophisticated than a simple political party designation. And You know, this came up. We were at a at a candidate forum. I'm in Bozeman right now. the MSU Pre-Law Club and the Gallatin Bar Association had a candidate forum last night. And one of the questions was, you know, aren't you just hiding if you don't have a partisan a partisan label that you're running behind? And my response was, you know, we've spent this whole night talking about An independent branch and impartiality and fairness. And voters are used to having that party designation as a shortcut to understand: does this person maybe their philosophy align with mine? Do their political priorities align with mine? Well, that is fundamentally not the job of a judge. And political party designations are misleading. To voters about what the job is that the judge will ultimately have to do. And when I'm talking to high school classes about this issue, and I say, you pick the most controversial topic in your lifetime, almost all the time, it's abortion and reproductive rights. And I say, okay, assume this. Assume that one political party says you can never have an abortion. And the other political party says you can have abortion and consultation with your medical provider. We're not gonna put any restrictions on it. Well, if I run as under a party designation that says you we don't want there to be abortions in any circumstances, you probably think you know how gonna rule on a case or how you expect me to rule on a case. Well, then we turn to the Montana Constitution. Which has a specific provision in it now after a recent amendment to protect women's reproductive decisions and decisions about their pregnancy. So if I'm following the Montana Constitution, which is my job as a Supreme Court justice, conceivably I've misled a whole bunch of voters. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Right. Judge Amy Eddy: That's why it's misleading. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Mm-hmm. The There has been several years when I moved here, several years ago, this Supreme Court, this I was at a dinner party and this came up about how the Supreme Court was going to get very dicey because of how strong our constitution is. And I said, What does that mean? They said, There's gonna be just don't be surprised in the next 10 years, you're gonna see a lot of people coming for our Supreme Court and our Constitution to overwrite that Constitution. Constitution. talk to us about. I know we we we've already shared some of the biggest concerns, but I know for a lot of them Montanans things like public lands, AI data centers, you've already brought up our constitution's preamble and how the wording very much touches on our natural environment. you just brought up medical privacy. and dignity, healthcare dignity, which also touches dying with dignity, physician-assisted suicide. It is really wild to try and tell folks from outside of here. I'm like, I know that there's farming and oil, you know, I'm in Great Falls. There's Judge Amy Eddy: And there's a lot of it, yes. Leigh/@followtheleighder: a lot of it. And I was like, but it's purple. Like it's like, it's it's weird. Like, I came here again from Texas. I was like, Y'all protected abortion and physician-assisted suicide, and you got indigenous education. I'm like, What's happening? And it's just it is a very beautiful constitution. can you talk about a little bit about those environmental threats that you feel a sense of protection to in the next few years? Judge Amy Eddy: Well, you know, I would say that ultimately the constitution is the people's document. If they want to amend it to include certain protections, or they want to amend it to take out certain protections, it's not hard to do. It's been amended almost 40 times over its history. So again, each generation or each issue as it's arisen, sometimes we've resolved through constitutional amendment. So we've been given this opportunity to keep the document relevant. If it ultimately, you know, we vote that no, we need to rewrite it. It could be better for whatever our purpose is, that is absolutely the prerogative of the people to do. Absolutely. it is a document that is to govern the way we coexist in this state together. And if we as a society believe it is not striking the proper balance anymore, then we need to amend it and it should be rewritten. And that's not something I take a take a position on. the Constitution is plain in its terms. I've taken an oath to uphold it, and it says what it says. And that's the way I'm going to interpret it and apply it until it says something different, and unless it says something different. And so, you know, for your listeners, just being educated on, you know, what are the flashpoints in the constitution, where are the priorities in the constitution, what could happen. And they should know that if we vote to call another constitutional convention, it's a complete rewrite top to bottom. You can't open it just for one section or another. And, you know, you might have some people who would say, We need to amend it to shore up public education. Or we need to get rid of public education. You could see that going both ways sometimes, you know, in the conversations that have been had. Or our environmental protections are keeping us from fully developing all of our natural resources that we want to have the ability to develop. And other people would say, no, no, no, we don't want any of that. Well. I mean, fine, but we are all walking around with cell phones. We're on a computer right now, recording this. We are using us in our lives an enormous amount of energy. We're using devices that require the mining of special minerals. And so, you know, there is that balance there of Sure, we want environmental protections, but we also want the benefit of all of these technological advances. And what is the cost of that? And how are we going to pay for it? And who's going to bear it? And so I think we need to be clear-eyed about what our societal needs are and how we're going to meet them or how they're going to change. And, you know, if we're not going to develop energy in Montana, that doesn't seem to be very realistic. or anything else. You know, we have to have it from somewhere. And so that's the balance that exists. And that's why I'm gonna I'm gonna read something from The Constitution, and this is from the Declaration of Rights, are inalienable rights, those are the ones you just can't take away from people. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health, and happiness in all lawful ways. That's one sentence. All of those rights are included in one sentence, in one section of the Declaration of Rights, because they are meant to coexist together. Not elevate, not be ranked. They're meant to coexist together. And so when you have a clash of these rights, which is sort of what we're talking about sometimes, the judge's job is not to rank them, it's to harmonize them and interpret it in a way where Each right gets to hold what is essential to the person, right? How can we decide it as narrowly as possible so that everyone gets to keep what's essential to them because they're meant to coexist? And that section ends in saying, in enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities. So we're not cherry-picking. We're not elevating one over the other. we're trying to harmonize them because they coexist in one sentence. Leigh/@followtheleighder: They really do. It's it's about integration and and coming together. Judge Amy Eddy: Yes, and yeah, and you know, under our the separation of powers, which is you know, goes back to France, predates the United States. But it's how we divide political authority and how we organize the American government. And we divide political authority into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. And that's embedded in the Montana Constitution as well. So the legislative branch is responsible for passing the law and appropriating money. And the executive branch is responsible for implementing the law. And the judicial branch is responsible for applying the law to disputes that come in front of it. And we do that day-in. Day out in literally hundreds of thousands of cases each year without any controversy. But the Supreme Court has this essential obligation to guard the Montana Constitution and make sure the other branches of government are operating within their constitutional limits as well. But at the end of the day, the judiciary, in large parts, def to those other branches of government on what the policy of the state should be. All statutes passed by the legislature are presumed to be constitutional. It's a very high burden to prove otherwise. Why is that? Well, the statutes that were passed were debated in public at the legislature. They've gone through committees. People have gone up and testified at the legislature about why they're for or against them. And they've been voted on by people who were popularly elected. They're the ones setting the policy of the state. And they've been signed into a law or perhaps vetoed by the governor who is also popularly elected, and they involve, you know, broad, complicated issues sometimes. So if a judge strikes down a statute and says that it's unconstitutional, we're impacting policy. Sometimes in ways we we can't begin to understand because we're not the branch that's responsible for it. And you can think Leigh/@followtheleighder: Right. Judge Amy Eddy: about, you know, when the old education funding litigation occurred and there was a constitutional determination, what what's the remedy and who comes up with it? Is that the judge? We don't Leigh/@followtheleighder: Yeah. Judge Amy Eddy: we don't know anything about education funding. And so you have to be very, very careful as a judge to understand to the extent you can, how you're impacting policy, and that you are stepping on and maybe appropriately the other branches of government sometimes. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Hm, absolutely. Judge Amy Eddy: And then they get an opportunity to respond in turn, right? And say, no, this is wrong. We're going to amend the statute. We're going to amend the constitution. And so through that, through that back and forth, the the branches have this ongoing conversation. And, you know, I was trying to pull it, I think in 2025 the legislature passed almost a thousand laws and 700 in some in 2023. The legislature does this enormous amount of work. And it's so complicated. And you know, talk about drinking out of a fire hose. These are citizen legislators. They come in every other year for 90 days and all of a sudden have a stack of perhaps thousands of bills that they have to sort through and decide is this the best policy for the state of Montana? And it's only the tiniest number of those that are ever determined to be unconstitutional. Leigh/@followtheleighder: I I have I so hope that you come back for a second conversation 'cause we are just right Judge Amy Eddy: Ha ha Leigh/@followtheleighder: about out of time. Judge Amy Eddy, can you please tell our listeners where they can donate, volunteer, or otherwise support your campaign for Supreme Court Justice of Montana? Judge Amy Eddy: Sure. Well, you can go to Amy Eddyforjustice.com, which is the website. That's the easiest way to find us. You can contribute online, or if you're old-fashioned, you can write a check and not pay any credit card processing fees. The maximum contribution is $830. And I'll just tell your listeners that despite all the ways that we have to communicate, you are a very difficult group of people to communicate with. If I call you, you don't pick up the phone because you don't know my phone number. If I leave you a voicemail, you get annoyed. if I send you an email, it probably gets caught up in your spam folder, because that's what spam filters are supposed to do, is to filter out bulk emails. If I send you a text message, you get annoyed that I'm invading your privacy, but it might be better than some of the other forms. If you're on social media, maybe we'll come across each other. if our algorithms are fluid enough to let us see each other, which leaves us with TV, radio, Some streaming, advertising, all of which is really expensive. But what is not expensive is you talking to your friends and family members about this race. If you're supporting the campaign, thank you. Tell your friends and family members that you are a trusted source of information and giving out information. And don't wait. Don't wait for someone to ask you who you're voting for for the Montana Supreme Court. Tell them and tell them why. and get that conversation going because that's really what what makes this election winnable. Leigh/@followtheleighder: Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, Judge Amy Eddie, thank you so much again for your time. I know that you were running a very busy campaign and I so appreciate you making me space for me on this morning. Folks, you heard it here. Do not forget to vote. Do not forget to donate, volunteer, and then like I said, share her name with your friends and your family and communities. I have been walking around just Amy Eddie, Amy, Amy. It's just like a little song in my head. Good. Name recognition, folks. Right. Like Judge Amy Eddy: That's what we like. Yes, yes, thank you. Leigh/@followtheleighder: absolutely. Folks, this has been a fantastic episode. I hope you understand that how serious this Montana Supreme Court race is. I know that also I've interviewed other Montana candidates, but really haven't pushed too much, especially in in these congressional races. But Supreme Court, that is nonpartisan, and that stuff matters. It it matters from AI data centers to shopping up timber out in Calisbell area. To plan parent, it just all of this matters. Our education. so folks, get out there. Judge Amy Eddie. That's the name that you need to be looking for out online and and at the ballot box. This has been another episode of Follow the Leighder... I'm your host, Leigh Larson. Don't forget to like, follow, subscribe. And until next time. See ya. Judge Amy Eddy: Thank you.